other stats US: Taylor Swift ends 2024 as #1 artist of the year with 18.4M total album units sold

[Doctor Dick]

7 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

That is again not how any of this works.  You can't just make up hypothetical consumers who would be willing to buy any and all of an artist's music and pretend you did something and somehow proved that the size of an artist's discography is the primary driver of total units moved. Taylor Swift's consumption is anomalous, and roughly triple any other artist in the industry, specifically because she's the only artist who has ever activated consumers in this way for an entire discography of any meaningful size. No other artist with as many albums as her is doing nearly the same numbers. There are artists - famous, successful artists - with 30 albums that don't do dick in streaming or total units these days. This isn't an averages thing, it's not more impressive to have less albums and still do way less units - the common factor is the artist, aggregate demand is for the artist.
 

Plus, your whole second paragraph is complete nonsense. We can still maintain that it's not the same people buying over and over again and take the position that she has uniquely activated many casual consumers who remain engaged and keep her consumption high. Like, that's literally a completely internally consistent argument, I don't know what you thought you were doing here. Are you just desperately grasping at anything you can to try to discredit the biggest two years any artist has ever had because you're mad that it's Taylor? 

You can't compare the streaming era to the physical era. There are millions of people who have listened to Taylor Swift FOR FREE on YouTube or Spotify who are counted among those 18M units while ALL of Eminem's units in 2002 are made up of purchased units. There are a large number of people who listened to Eminem for free who are not counted towards his units. If every single person who listened to Eminem in 2002 was counted towards his units he would've had more of them. Meanwhile, every single person who would've never paid for Taylor's music is counted in her total whether it comes from music video views or free Spotify streams. That along with more albums released gives her an advantage. 
 

It's not a 1:1 comparison. 8M people BOUGHT Eminem's music in 2002. 18M did NOT buy Taylor's music in 2024. It's not even debatable because of how vastly different music consumption was in a piracy-infested industry in the 2000s vs. a practically piracy-free one in the streaming era. 

Edited Friday at 12:02 AM by Doctor Dick

[Cruel Summer]

43 minutes ago, Doctor Dick said:

You can't compare the streaming era to the physical era. There are millions of people who have listened to Taylor Swift FOR FREE on YouTube or Spotify who are counted among those 18M units while ALL of Eminem's units in 2002 are made up of purchased units. There are a large number of people who listened to Eminem for free who are not counted towards his units. If every single person who listened to Eminem in 2002 was counted towards his units he would've had more of them. Meanwhile, every single person who would've never paid for Taylor's music is counted in her total whether it comes from music video views or free Spotify streams. That along with more albums released gives her an advantage. 
 

It's not a 1:1 comparison. 8M people BOUGHT Eminem's music in 2002. 18M did NOT buy Taylor's music in 2024. It's not even debatable because of how vastly different music consumption was in a piracy-infested industry in the 2000s vs. a practically piracy-free one in the streaming era. 

Yes, kick the goalpost further down the line for me - it only means you know you've lost because your only actual argument at the core of all this is "but I don't like Taylor Swift >:(" - I don't think you actually even believe what you're saying if you fold so fast.

 

Anyway - YOU can't compare 2002 to 2024 because of your mistaken frame of reference. But it's not about how or whether or how much consumers are paying individually - it's about revenue. It's about business generated, it's about large-scale consumer intent expressed monetarily or in nearly monetary terms. And when you quantify that consumer interest and intent in these terms, it is the equivalent of some number of album units. And do you know who decided that this would be how we measure things now, and why they decided that? It was decided by the companies that track music consumption in the first place for the express reason that they be able to communicate to commercial partners, to entities like labels and distributors - and less importantly, to invested music fans - in terms compatible with past years. That's why they still publish totals for the entire Luminate era, that's why you'll see single articles with numbers for albums released decades apart, and that's why the RIAA still certifies those albums with todays methodology. The entire point is to have a comparative common language, and while I won't make the mistake of appealing to Billboard et al. as an authority, I'll happily point out that we're adopting their language and methodology to talk about these concepts, not the other way around.

 

And furthermore, if today's methods of consumption had so fundamentally changed the calculus that it were inappropriate to make the comparisons, would we not see other artists posting these gargantuan numbers as evidence? Would we not see more actual competition for Taylor, as we did for Eminem in his peak years, and every other artist before? Instead, we see this surge applying, so far, to her and only her, furthering my point but bringing some serious questions up for your claims. It's only just in the last couple years that the music industry finally managed to repeal in total revenues, but Taylor is doubling or tripling the next closest artists' yearly consumption, which is completely unprecedented, and none do those artists are matching what Eminem did at his peak… or what Britney, BSB, or *NSYNC did, or even just ******* Adele did in 2015, or what Michael Jackson did in 2009 when he died. Let's also remember as part of this - music was a MASSIVE industry. You can bet that labels knew what would sell and kept albums in print if they were going to sell at all. Piracy was a problem, sure, but not at the magnitude of deterring 50+% of a major artist's selling potential, and not to such a degree that the consumers who were convinced to enter the legal consumption club via streaming have fundamentally altered the landscape. We literally know this by how long it took the streaming era to approach the revenue peak of the CD era. Streaming has not proven to inflate artists' consumption the way you're suggesting that its enabling of musics availability has done, and the sole and singular outlier is Taylor Swift, to such an extreme degree that no other artist in American music history has ever been such a major outlier in any year ever.

 

tl;dr: Taylor STOMPED like nobody has ever stomped before, accept it and get with the times. 

[Doctor Dick]

14 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

Yes, kick the goalpost further down the line for me - it only means you know you've lost because your only actual argument at the core of all this is "but I don't like Taylor Swift >:(" - I don't think you actually even believe what you're saying if you fold so fast.

 

Anyway - YOU can't compare 2002 to 2024 because of your mistaken frame of reference. But it's not about how or whether or how much consumers are paying individually - it's about revenue. It's about business generated, it's about large-scale consumer intent expressed monetarily or in nearly monetary terms. And when you quantify that consumer interest and intent in these terms, it is the equivalent of some number of album units. And do you know who decided that this would be how we measure things now, and why they decided that? It was decided by the companies that track music consumption in the first place for the express reason that they be able to communicate to commercial partners, to entities like labels and distributors - and less importantly, to invested music fans - in terms compatible with past years. That's why they still publish totals for the entire Luminate era, that's why you'll see single articles with numbers for albums released decades apart, and that's why the RIAA still certifies those albums with todays methodology. The entire point is to have a comparative common language, and while I won't make the mistake of appealing to Billboard et al. as an authority, I'll happily point out that we're adopting their language and methodology to talk about these concepts, not the other way around.

 

And furthermore, if today's methods of consumption had so fundamentally changed the calculus that it were inappropriate to make the comparisons, would we not see other artists posting these gargantuan numbers as evidence? Would we not see more actual competition for Taylor, as we did for Eminem in his peak years, and every other artist before? Instead, we see this surge applying, so far, to her and only her, furthering my point but bringing some serious questions up for your claims. It's only just in the last couple years that the music industry finally managed to repeal in total revenues, but Taylor is doubling or tripling the next closest artists' yearly consumption, which is completely unprecedented, and none do those artists are matching what Eminem did at his peak… or what Britney, BSB, or *NSYNC did, or even just ******* Adele did in 2015, or what Michael Jackson did in 2009 when he died. Let's also remember as part of this - music was a MASSIVE industry. You can bet that labels knew what would sell and kept albums in print if they were going to sell at all. Piracy was a problem, sure, but not at the magnitude of deterring 50+% of a major artist's selling potential, and not to such a degree that the consumers who were convinced to enter the legal consumption club via streaming have fundamentally altered the landscape. We literally know this by how long it took the streaming era to approach the revenue peak of the CD era. Streaming has not proven to inflate artists' consumption the way you're suggesting that its enabling of musics availability has done, and the sole and singular outlier is Taylor Swift, to such an extreme degree that no other artist in American music history has ever been such a major outlier in any year ever.

 

tl;dr: Taylor STOMPED like nobody has ever stomped before, accept it and get with the times. 

The yapping. 
 

Eminem had four albums at the time so comparing him to someone who has 14 while peaking is simply a bit unfair. And all of his units are purchased while Taylor's aren't. You literally have units in Taylor's that were consumed for free which you don't in Eminem's case. Taylor literally has units from MUSIC VIDEOS and Today's Top Hits in there. Eminem does NOT have units from MTV airplay or Now That's What I Call Music albums in his. And while this is about US consumption, I just need to note that the IFPI has clarified that over 90 PERCENT of music consumption globally was illegal. But that's a topic in "Taylor Swift breaks Madonna's all time sales" and not this. Just wanted to inform you about those 50 percent you noted. Piracy from before the streaming era was enormous and bigger than legal consumption which is why it's just totally incomparable to today's industry. I get that Swifties are desperate to put her name in all time areas - which comes through to every non-Swiftie - but there are some areas that just can't be compared and the faster you do your research the better. 

Edited Friday at 03:13 PM by Doctor Dick

[hungrymuffin]

why is that human organ again arguing in a thread thats related to an artist that he doesnt like?

 

OT: massive

[Cruel Summer]

26 minutes ago, Doctor Dick said:

The yapping. 
 

Eminem had four albums at the time so comparing him to someone who has 14 while peaking is simply a bit unfair. And all of his units are purchased while Taylor's aren't. You literally have units in Taylor's that were consumed for free which you don't in Eminem's case. Taylor literally has units from MUSIC VIDEOS and Today's Top Hits in there. Eminem does NOT have units from MTV airplay or Now That's What I Call Music albums in his. And while this is about US consumption, I just need to note that the IFPI has clarified that over 90 PERCENT of music consumption globally was illegal. But that's a topic in "Taylor Swift breaks Madonna's all time sales" and not this. Just wanted to inform you about those 50 percent you noted. Piracy from before the streaming era was enormous and bigger than legal consumption which is why it's just totally incomparable to today's industry. I get that Swifties are desperate to put her name in all time areas - which comes through to every non-Swiftie - but there are some areas that just can't be compared and the faster you do your research the better. 

"The yapping" because you can't refute basically **** I said, besides MAYBE a piracy comment, which you offered no source for. Moving the goal posts yet again because you have no actual point or argument! By the way, a quick and easy Google search indicates the 90% figure you're citing is from only China, including physical pirating, and that they're an extreme outlier. You don't even get into supporting evidence of whether any meaningful proportion of illegal downloads back in the day would have converted to legitimate sales anyway. Piracy alone will never even come close to making up that difference between Taylor's peak, the biggest of all time, and that of other artists. You're just chasing this rabbit hole and seizing on one point with no sources because you know you have NO other way to twist the conversation in your favor. You lose!

[Peroxide]

Miss @Cruel Summer not letting the poor girl come up for air… my God.

 

[Klein]

It's always that same member with the same arguments getting clocked left and right. 

 

Forget everything about the total units if you really want to. Who else had such a dominance on the music market with absolutely no competition of any kind in sight?  

[Deactivatedos]

as someone who attended eras... good for her, but also I feel like taylor is at her best creatively when she feels like she has something to prove (see rep, 1989, folkmore). hoping that she gets back into being a little more daring with her music after the tv era and assumedly post ts13.

[Cooper]

On 1/1/2025 at 10:59 PM, Doctor Dick said:

Taylor's units consists of 10+ albums and variants along with constant consumption of the singles and even units from playlists that are today's answers to compilation sets. Eminem's is definitely as or even more impressive. 

I mean, fair enough if you actually believe this, but I think it's not really a contest. Comparing actual moved units between the streaming era and before makes little sense to me because of a number of different reasons, but comparing the artist to their contemporary artists makes much more sense. Taylor is currently the number one best selling artist as well as the artist that moves the most units by an absolute huge margin. She stands out compared to her contermporaries in a way Eminem just never did. If we look at the actual physical units sold, she stands out even more. All biases aside, I really don't think this is close.

Edited Friday at 06:09 PM by Cooper

[Doctor Dick]

8 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

"The yapping" because you can't refute basically **** I said, besides MAYBE a piracy comment, which you offered no source for. Moving the goal posts yet again because you have no actual point or argument! By the way, a quick and easy Google search indicates the 90% figure you're citing is from only China, including physical pirating, and that they're an extreme outlier. You don't even get into supporting evidence of whether any meaningful proportion of illegal downloads back in the day would have converted to legitimate sales anyway. Piracy alone will never even come close to making up that difference between Taylor's peak, the biggest of all time, and that of other artists. You're just chasing this rabbit hole and seizing on one point with no sources because you know you have NO other way to twist the conversation in your favor. You lose!

 

The music industry is still losing out to internet pirates on a huge scale, with an estimated 95% of music available online being downloaded illegally.

Despite record-breaking growth in digital sales of music from sites such as iTunes, the majority of music downloaded in 2008 was done so without payment to either the artist or record label, according to a report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2009/jan/17/music-piracy

 

IFPI estimates that the cumulative retail revenue lost to piracy will be €240bn (£203bn) between 2008 and 2015.

The IFPI chief executive, Frances Moore, calculates losses on the basis that one in every 10 illegal downloads is a lost sale.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2011/jan/20/ifpi-report-music-piracy

 

7 hours ago, Peroxide said:

Miss @Cruel Summer not letting the poor girl come up for air… my God.

 

The way you guys got clocked and a half with actual receipts but still won't admit it because you choose to be ignorant. Only Swifites. NO your fave cannot be compared to major acts from the past and YES your fave has a massive advantage in the streaming age. Even your little fave site Chartmasters has stated comparing acts from the streaming era to ones from the past is unfair and illogical because all those acts you so desperately want to pit your fave against had less legal sales reported from less places with record-breaking piracy and you will STILL not admit it is just very telling of your insecurity. Do the research and THEN talk the talk please: 

 

While this is the picture today, if we were to look at the past, when 80% of the world's music markets were ruined by piracy, it presents an even muddier picture. There are many average artists today, who probably get more equivalent album sales, in countries where official records were never released, places like Mali, Senegal, Vietnam and so many others. Yet Bob Marley is likely way bigger there than DaBaby.
 

Historically, the global music industry was mostly limited to the Western world. The biggest albums were released in North America, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa and in Western European markets. 

 

Some pop stars sold well over 100 million albums in these territories, so we tend to view them as artists who were/are big on a global scale. Having said that, data does reveal that people from many countries and ethnic groups, do not really know much about them at all.

https://chartmasters.org/the-60-most-global-artists-of-all-time/

 

Edited Friday at 11:40 PM by Doctor Dick

[Cruel Summer]

30 minutes ago, Doctor Dick said:

 

The music industry is still losing out to internet pirates on a huge scale, with an estimated 95% of music available online being downloaded illegally.

Despite record-breaking growth in digital sales of music from sites such as iTunes, the majority of music downloaded in 2008 was done so without payment to either the artist or record label, according to a report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2009/jan/17/music-piracy

 

IFPI estimates that the cumulative retail revenue lost to piracy will be €240bn (£203bn) between 2008 and 2015.

The IFPI chief executive, Frances Moore, calculates losses on the basis that one in every 10 illegal downloads is a lost sale.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2011/jan/20/ifpi-report-music-piracy

 

The way you guys got clocked and a half with actual receipts but still won't admit it because you choose to be ignorant. Only Swifites. NO your fave cannot be compared to major acts from the past and YES your fave has a massive advantage in the streaming age. Even your little fave site Chartmasters has stated comparing acts from the streaming era to ones from the past is unfair and illogical because all those acts you so desperately want to pit your fave against had less legal sales reported from less places with record-breaking piracy and you will STILL not admit it is just very telling of your insecurity. Do the research and THEN talk the talk please: 

 

While this is the picture today, if we were to look at the past, when 80% of the world's music markets were ruined by piracy, it presents an even muddier picture. There are many average artists today, who probably get more equivalent album sales, in countries where official records were never released, places like Mali, Senegal, Vietnam and so many others. Yet Bob Marley is likely way bigger there than DaBaby.
 

Historically, the global music industry was mostly limited to the Western world. The biggest albums were released in North America, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa and in Western European markets. 

 

Some pop stars sold well over 100 million albums in these territories, so we tend to view them as artists who were/are big on a global scale. Having said that, data does reveal that people from many countries and ethnic groups, do not really know much about them at all.

https://chartmasters.org/the-60-most-global-artists-of-all-time/

 

Oh I knew you'd pick that 95% of downloads one! And, of course, proceed to make the tragic mistake of conflating downloads with consumption without supporting evidence that those downloads would have actually been purchases if the free, if illegal, option wasn't there for that person. Clock yourself, girlie pop! 
 

I think we're beginning to reach the acceptance stage now that all you're saying is that she "has an advantage" because of streaming. This of course is not materially supported by aggregate numbers or patterns of consumption for other artists and Taylor herself remains an anomaly with a greater proportion of all US music consumption per year than any other artist has ever had in history, but you know, progress!

[Doctor Dick]

14 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

Oh I knew you'd pick that 95% of downloads one! And, of course, proceed to make the tragic mistake of conflating downloads with consumption without supporting evidence that those downloads would have actually been purchases if the free, if illegal, option wasn't there for that person. Clock yourself, girlie pop! 
 

I think we're beginning to reach the acceptance stage now that all you're saying is that she "has an advantage" because of streaming. This of course is not materially supported by aggregate numbers or patterns of consumption for other artists and Taylor herself remains an anomaly with a greater proportion of all US music consumption per year than any other artist has ever had in history, but you know, progress!

The receipts provided and some logic and common sense tells you that the music industry and the state of the music industry now cannot and should not be compared 1:1 like you're constantly doing. 
 

You lost this discussion and are truly just fighting for air.  Go buy another variant to further inflate her sales or something, maybe that'll make you satisfied because the loss of this discussion certainly didn't. 

Edited Saturday at 02:53 PM by Doctor Dick

[wastedpotential]

5 minutes ago, Doctor Dick said:

The receipts provided and some logic and common sense tells you that the music industry and the state of the music industry now cannot and should not be compared 1:1 like you're constantly doing. 
 

You lost this discussion and are truly just fighting for air.  Go buy another variant to further inflate her sales or something, maybe that'll make you satisfied because the loss of this discussion certainly didn't. 

 

Never change, Doctor Dick 

[Rep2000]

On 1/2/2025 at 5:15 AM, Doctor Dick said:

Your constant need of bringing Gaga into a discussion and being in every Gaga thread is weird. 
 

You're definitely invested in Gaga and her massive peak still has some sort of effect on you. Stay on topic or go to banland. 

This unintentional Gaga shade from her own stan, I-

[Lemon]

Hilarious... I remember that user from various (nearly exact) Taylor threads from months ago. 

 

I can't, repeat cannot, understand where people find time to discuss things they don't enjoy, especially in such lengthy manner and, moreover, under the pretense they are having discussion in good faith and with objectivity when it is actually the opposite. 

Edited Saturday at 03:45 PM by Lemon

[Popboi.]

The huge think pieces on what ifs, buts and maybes, only to then change the argument after each clock

 

All that after embarrassingly posting "stay on topic or go to banland" 

 

To particularly stay on topic! Congrats to Taylor again for unprecedented year end units (only second to her own last year!)

[Cruel Summer]

2 hours ago, Doctor Dick said:

The receipts provided and some logic and common sense tells you that the music industry and the state of the music industry now cannot and should not be compared 1:1 like you're constantly doing. 
 

You lost this discussion and are truly just fighting for air.  Go buy another variant to further inflate her sales or something, maybe that'll make you satisfied because the loss of this discussion certainly didn't. 

Girl, the only actual reason you don't think we can't compare 1:1 is because Taylor STOMPS and you hate it. It's genuinely hilarious. Whether you want it or not, the music industry and fans will continue to compare, because being able to do so is THE ENTIRE ******* POINT of concepts like equivalent album units 

 

You can't even try to end the discussion in your own way. I've already told you that you lost, and you know you did, the moment you failed to defend your initial stance, let alone all the rest of it. 
 

And as a matter of fact, I think I will buy another copy! I still don't have The Anthology on CD, I'll get one just for you.  Have a wonderful weekend!

[getinthezone]

whos the best selling artist in the US? is there a chance shell pass them?

[woohoo]

The female single band member Beatles did it again. 

[Enrique523]

On 1/4/2025 at 4:44 PM, Lemon said:

Hilarious... I remember that user from various (nearly exact) Taylor threads from months ago. 

 

I can't, repeat cannot, understand where people find time to discuss things they don't enjoy, especially in such lengthy manner and, moreover, under the pretense they are having discussion in good faith and with objectivity when it is actually the opposite. 

That user is SO blatant about their bad faith positions, it's not even funny. That same person, not that long ago, also ****-shamed Taylor talking about her past boyfriends (yes, in 2024) and went on about how Kanye and Kim were the actual victims in the 2016 fiasco. That's the kind of hater we're dealing with  

 

As i said on the Taylor base, it's really scary how blindly hateful some people are toward Taylor, they act as if she literally murdered their loved ones 

[Peroxide]

All this drama about "you can't compare the streaming age to the physical age"… girl. We can all agree that music consumption works differently now… yes.
 

But using that logic to make the point that Taylor is simply not as popular as * checks notes * Eminem in 2002? Sis… you have lost your damn MIND. 
 

 

Over TEN MILLION people saw the Era's tour… and paid hundreds - some thousands to see her live. Quite literally… who else is doing that? Nobody. Taylor's reign is unprecedented - not just in 2024, but throughout all of music history.

 

We're talking about a woman who's just turned 35…. who's had a career which has reached a fever pitch EIGHTEEN years into the game. What other female pop star has done that? I literally cannot think of another example.

 

Yes, Taylor's a very different type of artist to the "greats"… Madonna, Michael Jackson, The Beatles etc. But when all said and done, her name is going to sit alongside them in the history books 

 

Accept it and move on.