NoName

Well both. Both of them grew organically before they became commercial juggernauts. But Taylor did receive attention early on in her career from dating more famous celebrities and the discussions around her songs about them whereas Adele just exploded for her music solely without any big push.

Quality is probably subjective. But this wasn't about his quality at all. It was about that user claiming Taylor is on Michael's level commercially. That's incorrect and there's nothing wrong with that.

What's the hint I should take? That I'm not allowed to disagree with a Swiftie about Swift? Why should I double down on that behaviour when that has never even in the slightest been a cause for a ban in the first place? It's a pop music forum about discussions. It's not "beefing" just because you don't agree with my takes. Especially when half of those Taylor threads incorporate Adele's name. I mean what exactly is me sharing my opinion on a subject any different from you disagreeing with it? The fact that you took your time to do research on my account because you what? Didn't like that I don't like Taylor? Like what is this even. Again, nothing I've said in any of those threads you mentioned warrants any ban whatsoever nor do I attack any Swifties. The "attacks" are the ones thrown at me for my opinions on her if anything. There's nothing to move on from because of some mod on here who probably is a Swiftie hands out bans for freedom of speech, for literally NOT breaking any rules. And you of all people should not talk since how you spoke about artists in that "free-for-all" thread with disgusting language that put-together is more vile and vicious than anything I have ever posted. So glass-houses sis. Anyways, this is a forum meant to discuss pop stars and their music and accomplishments. Do you expect to start a thread about Taylor Swift and just have everyone raving and agreeing with everything you say? Is that what you expect. Again, nothing I post or "argue" about is anything controversial or worth "banning" but the fact that some users DO get banned for it tells you that vast mod-examination needs to be studied. And I'm talking about the countless users who have presumably been banned for no reason whatsoever as well. And when you get banned for having a dupe account while not having one means that mod needed a label to put on their unwarranted and unfair banning so they went with that. Anyways, nothing I have said or continue to say is anything ban-worthy so you just continue to do you and stop following my every move and I continue to do what this board is ultimately designed for: to discuss (whether positive or negative) pop artists and their accomplishments.

BrandNewBrandon has never received enough warning points to even be eligible for an eviction nor has he ever broken any rules, according to ATRL's guidelines. He has, however, been in discussions about Taylor's sales and accomplishments giving his opinion without any racist, transphobic, aggressive or vile comments and has supported 90% of this board's artists. If not being a Taylor stan or supporter is cause for a ban then it is extremely pathetic by any means. Chameleot (I think that was his username?) who got banned in recent days for what seemed like nothing other than also being a non-Swiftie is another prime example of such behaviour and abuse of power. But it does seem like ATRL needs a serious reevaluation on who the mods are (specifically that one mod) because there's an abuse of power going on when banning users for NOT breaking the rules. Brandon getting a ban out of the blue for being a dupe account while not being one is against the rules on any site and does send a message that there's a mod on the team who is abusing their power. Pinpoint me to where that user did anything remotely worth a ban. And if mods are reading this message, I'm sure you can check these things in that user's posting history because being a OTH (as people here call anti-fans) is not a cause for banning. If I get banned then whoever is reading this knows someone on the mod-team is abusing his or her power. Because if you start banning users because they aren't fans of an artist on a forum dedicated to all artists then the site is corrupt and not worth anyone's time. This isn't ATayloRL, this is ATRL (and the house that Britney built)

I don't think she's close to overtaking MJ lol.

I'm on a pop forum with an Adele avi and I get this amount of theories and hate is quite disgusting. I didn't offend you, wtf.

K-Fed became a celebrity because of Britney and was a bad influence on her. Meanwhile, Pique is a cheating scumbag but he was still a professional football player and had a career before Shakira. Also, Shakira didn't exactly suffer the same downfall that Britney did post-Pique so it's gotta be K-Fed.

Came here to drag Biden but then saw how George W. Bush had a higher approval rating than anyone mentioned Biden is heavily disliked and that TikTok ban has turned off the majority of young voters. He's too old, his rival is **** and this election is pathetic.

But those units are also largely fans listening to it at home, she's not selling 25 million albums. MJ's sales were from a time when the measurement stopped once you purchased that album in stores. It's not 25 million albums sold. Are you implying that Taylor Swift is bigger than Michael Jackson who has the biggest album of all time, more overall sales with less studio albums and whose follow-up to the best-selling album of all time has sold more than any Taylor Swift album without streaming added to it? Is @Taylena of the same opinion?

Well, Britney's discography in the 2000s wasn't as strong as Madonna's but I bopped way more to that but that was probably because I was a kid In the Zone is pretty stellar though.

"But but BUT but she's the biggest artist since Elvis. Adele fans should be worried next week"

12 million people tuned in to watch a TV special with her during 30's roll out. If anything faded her star power it was what happened when the album dropped and people didn't like the album. It was by far one of the most perfect lead singles to ever accompany a hyped release. Just pop perfection.

Anyways, I don't get it. In that sales thread there were users saying Taylor's opening of 2+ million is more impressive than previous etc. because sales aren't a big blah blah blah blah but when I say Ed is more impressive because there were 212% less users on Spotify back then it's suddenly loud and wrong.

Well, I sort of do But I meant it as in no one's saying that having more users means automatically more streams but the equivalent of Ed's opening numbers aren't 190 million nowadays.

I don't recall any Beyoncé streaming post. However, no one's saying having more users means more streams but it's about Ed doing 190 million when Spotify was less popular and therefore had a bigger chokehold on the ones that did use Spotify than Taylor does. And I wouldn't be so sure about those pure sales in Europe. And this is about Europe. We're talking about a 212% percentage difference in active users, not 10% or 15% or 20%. It's 212% therefore it's a super important and noteworthy factor in comparing or even making a thread like this. It's like bragging about a 1 million opening in pure sales in 2000 and comparing it to a 1 million now. It was still huge in 2000 but it is bigger and more impressive now.

Taylor's not solo.

This girl has MPG status written all over her. This can be a smash.

We were only talking about this specific record and the one who previously held it. Not about which umpteenth successful release it is. We are talking about Ed doing more or less numbers in the same ballpark as Taylor at a time when there was a 212% less users. Taylor's consistency has nothing to do with this discussion.

We were only talking about this specific record and the one who previously held it. Not about which umpteenth successful release it is. We are talking about Ed doing more or less numbers in the same ballpark as Taylor at a time when there was a 212% increase it users. Taylor's consistency has nothing to do with this discussion.

They are impressive but they aren't more impressive than Ed's. Why is Taylor's more impressive than Ed's?

The change in narrative. That still doesn't make TTPD more impressive. "Keeps achieving new milestones". Well, she'll stop as well. This could be her peak as well.

But there were 160 million active users on Spotify back in 2017, now there are 500 million. Congrats to Taylor but Ed's is more impressive regardless of how you look at it.

There's a difference between Ed doing 190 million when there were 160 million active users and Taylor doing 254 million when there are half a billion active users. Like, why not just debate with facts? Ed's debut is more impressive with less songs and way less active users.

Spotify had 160 million users and Ed did 190,000,000. Spotify now has 500+ million active users and Taylor does 254,000,000. Do the math because Ed's debut is factually way bigger.

They are impressive but why compare her to stats of artists that weren't as privileged?