Biggest Album sales ever going to be topped

[PinnacleProdUK]

In the current state of the music industry and the lack of cd sales compared to years back, Do you think the current records for album sales like for instance thriller MJ or the records the Beatles currently hold will ever be topped, I mean actual sales have dropped drastically for everybody over the last 10 or so years.

Your thoughts?

[Mad John]

I don't believe we will see a return of the past regarding commercial music. The world has moved on to virtual reality and BOB got SPONGED to death!

[zboy2854]

No, the old paradigm is over. The era of "diamond" album sales are gone, heck, the era of the album as a construct is pretty much over, therefore how we measure success going forward will not resemble how we previously measured it.

It's pretty clear that subscription or bundled services model is the future for music consumption. Therefore, success will be judged in different terms than "sales", it will be more like the way radio airplay is tracked, by number of "listens" or "streams", etc.

Welcome to the brave new world...

[dysenterygary]

No the days of super giant bands are over, but there will still be bands that get really big. Contrary to popular belief there are still bands that are really good at what they do and their success reflects that. On the other side of the coin LOTS of other bands that would have never had a chance now have a chance.

[RyanMusic]

"On the other side of the coin LOTS of other bands that would have never had a chance now have a chance."


No way I specialize in discovering artists and getting them signed and I usually find solo artists but recently found two great bands and wanted to join up with heavy weight band management but they advised me that bands are a nightmare to get signed and no one Majors or indies want to invest the money it takes to get them to be a successful (money making) band. Its an awful time for new talent.

I am now looking for Three Priests who are also Soldiers and have served in afghanastan and are only interested in singing "Dont forget me" "we are coming home" "we fight for love" type songs that include military bag pipes" and if we can get kids with some awful disease to feature on some songs that would be great.

The future of the music business is Gimicks and American Idol

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by RyanMusic

"On the other side of the coin LOTS of other bands that would have never had a chance now have a chance."


No way I specialize in discovering artists and getting them signed and I usually find solo artists but recently found two great bands and wanted to join up with heavy weight band management but they advised me that bands are a nightmare to get signed and no one Majors or indies want to invest the money it takes to get them to be a successful (money making) band. Its an awful time for new talent.

Perhaps the problem is that you're stuck in the mindset of "getting signed". If that's the goal, then yes, it is an awful time for new talent in terms of expecting any kind of development from labels, and in many respects for most acts getting signed is the last thing they'd want to do these days, and after all, the so-called "mainstream" today has become just another niche sideshow, it's really not the mainstream anymore.

But there can be no question that it is now possible in this day and age to be an independent act and make a living with music in ways that was impossible in the previous "labels only" era. May not be the kind of stupid money that was possible before in the label paradigm, but there are plenty of independent acts that are wildly successful relative to their expectations and expenses.

Welcome to the brave new world.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by PinnacleProdUK

In the current state of the music industry and the lack of cd sales compared to years back, Do you think the current records for album sales like for instance thriller MJ or the records the Beatles currently hold will ever be topped, I mean actual sales have dropped drastically for everybody over the last 10 or so years.

Your thoughts?

it's debatable no one knows what's going to happen. there are plenty of artists that have sold 25 million that you'd look back and laugh at

List of best-selling albums worldwide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spice Girls? Linkin Park? Backstreet Boys?Oasis?Hootie? some pretty cheezy stuff. It will be done again. Labels just have to start signing bands that can actually write a complete record worth of great stuff. They're out there. Labels are just signing trendy 1 hit bands now. They need to take some chances and sign some different bands and see where it goes. Until then it will be same old same old and sales will suffer. People download the 1 hit and that's all.

Think about the Back Street Boys Millennium' selling 40 million? That is more than Zep 4? It's pretty unbelievable when you think about it. Not that Zep is better than the BSBs but that zep 4 was available for 30 years before? Maybe they just didn't have accurate sales analysis back then. Everyone I've ever met has that record. Not to mention we all had it on LP, 8track and then bought it on CD and then again on CD when they remastered it.

If Céline and Britney Spears can sell 20+ it will happen again but with someone actually good. Maybe the mp3
just killed everything? The ability to buy just the 'hit' maybe ended the 'record' sales as we knew it.

[gainreduction]

If a label would be patient enough to properly develop the right talent over 10-15 years or so... maybe. The labels´ short term thinking is a big problem.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

it's debatable no one knows what's going to happen. there are plenty of artists that have sold 25 million that you'd look back and laugh at

List of best-selling albums worldwide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spice Girls? Linkin Park? Backstreet Boys?Oasis?Hootie? some pretty cheezy stuff. It will be done again. Labels just have to start signing bands that can actually write a record worth of great stuff. they're out there. Labels are just signing trendy bands now. They need to take some chances and sign some different bands and see where it goes. Until then it will be same old same old and sales will suffer.

Think about the Back Street Boys Millennium' selling 40 million?
That is more than Zep 4? It's pretty unbelievable when you think about it. Not that Zep is better than the BSBs but that zep 4 was available for 30 years before? Maybe they just didn't have accurate sales analysis back then. Everyone Ive ever met has that record. Not to mention we all had it on LP, 8track and then bought it on CD and then again on CD when they remastered it.

If Céline and Britney Spears can sell 20+ will it will happen again but someone actually good

If you look at that list, you'll notice something quite striking. The more prevalent the internet became and downloading became popular, the fewer blockbuster albums there were. When you break it down by decade, clearly the industry as we knew it before vis a vis the "album" peaked in the '90s:

17 from the '70s and earlier
20 from the '80s
28 from the '90s
7 from the '00s

And the last album to make that blockbuster list was from 2004. Which means that in the last 5 years, when downloading and music acquisition has changed the most rapidly, there hasn't been a single blockbuster album of that level. What does this mean, that no one's made an album as good as Usher's Confessions or with as many hit singles since then? False.

So what's changed? The method of music acquisition. Ask kids today about CD's and they'll laugh in your face, you might as well be talking about wax cylinders. And most of them who do actually buy music aren't purchasing whole albums, they're purchasing the single they like.

The paradigm has changed. Any illusions that we're going back to "album sales" as the primary measuring stick in the new age of acquisition and consumption habits are just that, illusions. We might as well lobby for bringing back film as the primary method of consumer photography over digital. It's not coming back in that form anymore.

[matt thomas]

well when the world population doubles they will only need to sell to half the proportion that they used to. So if the population ever increases in a huge way (hopefully not) then it should be relatively easy to beat todays numbers

matt

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

If a label would be patient enough to properly develop the right talent over 10-15 years or so... maybe. The labels´ short term thinking is a big problem.

While that is indeed important for the purposes of nurturing lasting musical careers and loyal fan bases, that's not going to bring back the kind of mega album sales we once saw. Spice Girls, or Ace of Base, or Britney Spears weren't developed as acts with the public over 10-15 years, yet they are all on that mega selling list.

If there's one thing that list shows us, it's that being a long term viable act has no bearing on the kind of album sales being talked about. You've got plenty of "flashes in the pan" mixed in with all time classic acts on that list. The issue is quite simply that people do not buy "albums" in the quantities or way that they used to, combined with the fact that there is no longer a true center anymore in terms of mass consciousness. Radio/MTV used to be that and everybody was paying attention to the same stuff, but those are now niche outlets. Everyone is now off in their own little corners of the internet, finding out about stuff they like mostly through word of mouth or their own self discovery. And when something does hit the mass consciousness (usually via American Idol these days), the actual album sales are less, because more people are just buying or downloading the singles and not whole albums. That is, of course, when they're actually paying for them to begin with.

[Raider]

Yes, the paradigm has changed.
The new unit measurement is number of "Downloads".
And this will never eclipse anything "plasticware" ever did in numbers.
The added profit baked into making and selling records and CD's has been stripped out; fruition...to wholesale...to retail.

Paired down even further; and for every million downloads there's pirating among friends and still network sharing sites that take 2 million more for FREE. And this is AFTER the CD "ripping" phase of the past.

Just maybe, if you like the act enough, you'll pay $50 to go see them live. And if said act manages their touring budget well they'll make a little money. But actually PAYING for a recording?! Nobody does that any more but fools.

[gainreduction]

In which way music will be sold and consumed in the near future and what kind of sales numbers we will see - I don´t really know. But I think it´s still possible for someone to reach massive, worldwide success given the right kind of support from labels or whoever will be running things.

zboy is right that the old ways and the old days as we know them are not coming back, for better or worse.

[reason108]

[QUOTE=Raider;4758593]

Paired down even further; and for every million downloads there's pirating among friends and still network sharing sites that take 2 million more for FREE. And this is AFTER the CD "ripping" phase of the past. [QUOTE]


"Damn kids, when I was their age, we had to walk to the store just to steal our albums!"

[Raider]

In 1976 I bought a cheap stereo/turntable/cassette combo. I borrowed a bunch of my friends records and made cassette tapes out of them.
I was the shizizzle!

I've since upgraded most of that music to the CD digital reissues.

Now I need to convert all of them to .mp3 and store them on my hard drive. After that I give up.

(Thankfully I skipped the 8-track era!)

I own about 100,000 recordings of songs.
It would take me about a year (24/7) to listen to all of them, again.

[Dean Roddey]

I've said before that Alanis Morrisette was perhaps the luckiest artist ever. She had probably the last huge monster hit album just before everything changed. And she'll probably be the last one. She probably was recording that album at the time that Congress was passing the bill to commercialize the internet, in 1995 and probably ended the tour for that album about the time that the Napster thing blew up.

Anyone think she'd sell 30+ million now? Not a chance. The only record she'd break now is perhaps number of downloads. And of course the downloaders would scream about now the fatcats are just raking in the money by ripping off people and sellng CDs by the boatload. But they never stop to think how many other artists probably got their shot at the goal because of the money that came in from that one album's sales, right?

[Bob Olhsson]

Of course there will.

It just won't sound like the warmed over '80s records most people are making for an audience that's yawning and not inspired to buy anything.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

If you look at that list, you'll notice something quite striking. The more prevalent the internet became and downloading became popular, the fewer blockbuster albums there were. When you break it down by decade, clearly the industry as we knew it before vis a vis the "album" peaked in the '90s:

17 from the '70s and earlier
20 from the '80s
28 from the '90s
7 from the '00s

And the last album to make that blockbuster list was from 2004. Which means that in the last 5 years, when downloading and music acquisition has changed the most rapidly, there hasn't been a single blockbuster album of that level. What does this mean, that no one's made an album as good as Usher's Confessions or with as many hit singles since then? False.

So what's changed? The method of music acquisition. Ask kids today about CD's and they'll laugh in your face, you might as well be talking about wax cylinders. And most of them who do actually buy music aren't purchasing whole albums, they're purchasing the single they like.

The paradigm has changed. Any illusions that we're going back to "album sales" as the primary measuring stick in the new age of acquisition and consumption habits are just that, illusions. We might as well lobby for bringing back film as the primary method of consumer photography over digital. It's not coming back in that form anymore.

While I don't disagree are there any big artists now? sure there are a few but the quantity and quality is pretty low. Jonas Brothers? Foo fighters? Kidrock? Taylor Swift? Coldplay? It's almost pathetic when you think this is all there really is.

Look at the 60's, 70's, 80's 90's There were 20 huge bands at every given moment coming out with a hit record.

Today I think it's a 3 way combo of band songs, mediocre artists and downloads killing music. Who is the best artist on top 10 out now? I have no idea? But it's probably safe to say they are not as good as the artist that was dead last in the top 200 - 20 or 30 years ago.

sad but true

[sage691]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Of course there will.

It just won't sound like the warmed over '80s records most people are making for an audience that's yawning and not inspired to buy anything.

Thanks Bob for injecting some much needed optimism in the latest gloom and doom GS thread concerning the "industry". Only great artists with passion, talent, and originality putting out great records that inspire and move people will turn things around; and those that can do this WILL have great success!

And who are you people on here proclaiming that the album model is dead ? The real problem, as far as I can see, is that hardly anything of any real quality is being released today in this format. You know, an album of 10-15 songs that, strung together, are like one cohesive piece of profound art. If people really felt like they were getting something of great quality, they WILL buy it and feel good about it.

Get out in the field and talk to the young, middle aged, and older folks (ages 18-65) out there about the current state of music. Just simply ask over 1000 people on the street (me and a friend have actually done this) and you will find a startling common denominator in basically all of their replies. People are not buying albums today because the stuff labels are putting out is worthless cookie-cutter garbage with no soul or originality, and they are tired of being scammed. People are literally sick of the endless barage of untalented copy-cat artists who can't even play their instruments well, and they have basically boycotted the industry by no longer paying for the garbage.

Most of the really serious music listeners/buyers that I know (ya know, the type person that's SO into music that they have over 1000 CDs they bought) have completely written off the labels and actually look at the top 100 today as a guage for what is probably the worst stuff out there. Yet they spend ALOT of time on the net looking for new music, and are finding things that they really love AND buying the CDs from those artists. And yes, they WANT albums -- not just singles; they simply want something GREAT, something REAL, and something of QUALITY!

[author]

Originally Posted by sage691

You know, an album of 10-15 songs that, strung together, are like one cohesive piece of profound art.

Unfortunately, there has never been such a pop/rock album.

Usual suspects like Pepper, Warhol and Dark Side may be close, but you need a classical symphony or opera if you want a 'cohesive piece of profound art'.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by sage691

And who are you people on here proclaiming that the album model is dead ? The real problem, as far as I can see, is that hardly anything of any real quality is being released today in this format. You know, an album of 10-15 songs that, strung together, are like one cohesive piece of profound art. If people really felt like they were getting something of great quality, they WILL buy it and feel good about it.

Get out in the field and talk to the young, middle aged, and older folks (ages 18-65) out there about the current state of music. Just simply ask over 1000 people on the street (me and a friend have actually done this) and you will find a startling common denominator in basically all of their replies. People are not buying albums today because the stuff labels are putting out is worthless cookie-cutter garbage with no soul or originality, and they are tired of being scammed. People are literally sick of the endless barage of untalented copy-cat artists who can't even play their instruments well, and they have basically boycotted the industry by no longer paying for the garbage.

Really? Then how do you explain 20 million sold for each of the 2 Spice Girls albums? 20 million for each of 2 Britney Spears albums (whereas none of her recent albums are anywhere near that)? 23 million for Ace of Base? 20 million for Billy Ray Cyrus? Isn't that stuff the examples of the 'worthless cookie-cutter garbage' you're referring to? So why did that worthless cookie-cutter garbage sell 20 million apiece in the '90s, but today's worthless cookie-cutter garbage doesn't?

Sorry, but the talent portion isn't the reason. If it was, none of the above albums would have sold 20 million+ apiece. People could have just as easily boycotted buying those albums back then as they could today. No, that's not the answer.

The fact of the matter is that people are not buying music in quantities the way they used to, simply because the way they consume it and the way they value it has fundamentally changed.

The closest anyone has gotten to those magic sales numbers in the last 5 years have been Nickelback, Carrie Underwood, and Miley Cyrus/Hanna Montana. Do you consider any of those to be "profound art" or of "great quality"?

[rack gear]

depending on what stats you use, the record industry as a whole as seen a decline in sales of 40%-50% in the last 8-9 years.

I think we're pretty much beyond the point of seeing diamond certs (10m) on any single album.

Big records today are probably topping out around 4 million units - Taylor Swift for example on her biggest album (released 2006), whereas Shania Twain sold about 15 million on Come On Over (Released 1997).

What a difference a decade makes...

The RIAA publishes stats on how many certs per year at each sales level - I'd say even Gold and Platinum certs are waaay down from what they used to be...

[Dean Roddey]

People are not buying albums today because the stuff labels are putting out is worthless cookie-cutter garbage with no soul or originality, and they are tired of being scammed. People are literally sick of the endless barage of untalented copy-cat artists who can't even play their instruments well, and they have basically boycotted the industry by no longer paying for the garbage.

Maybe once you get up out of the teens. But clearly young folks, those that would have normally been the driving force in record sales, don't take this view. I've said it a hundred times. Go to Youtube. Look at lots of videos from young people, where the person has (usually illegally) used some song as background music, or often where something is playing in the background or where there are visible posters on the wall.

These folks (given downloading) have access to the entire world of popular music. If they thought that Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin and Queen where better than Lady Gaga or The Jonas Broths, they'd be listening to them and using them in their videos. But I never see that happening. I see then listening to the artists of their generation.

And you can also go to the videos where people (illlegally) have just posted those songs and read the comments. You aren't going to find many young folks posting about how bad this music sucks and I wish I could have more Elton John or Black Sabbath. They obviously like Miley Cyrus and Rhianna and Jay Z and all that stuff. It's their music, as distinct from the previous generations' music, and provides them with their own group identity.

I do still see a fair number of Cobain posters, since he seems to have acheived a godhood that has survived his era. But generally speaking, it's clearly that kids don't think that this music sucks, and they download it by the ton for that reason.

As to people 30 and older, well those people were probably saying the same thing in the 90s, and the 80s, and the 70s, and so forth, because the popular music being made wasn't targeting them, as it never is.

So anyway, I keep repeating this rant because I think it's important. Listening to people whose musical tastes were set in the 60s as a measure of the value of music made 50 years later, is not very useful generally. I wouldn't listen to a lot of it either, but I'm not so egotistical as to think that because I don't like it that it sucks and therefore all the kids who do are fooling themselves or being brainwashed.

When you wake up one day and discover that someone you've never heard of is considered by kids to be an artist from the distant past whose time is over, that's a sign.

Just give it a while and it'll change again, hopefully in a way that I like, maybe not. Given that we had ten years of grunge, and now ten years of fairly shallow pop, I'm not so sure that something grunge-like will be the next round. It could be far scarier than what's around now.

[sage691]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Really? Then how do you explain 20 million sold for each of the 2 Spice Girls albums? 20 million for each of 2 Britney Spears albums (whereas none of her recent albums are anywhere near that)? 23 million for Ace of Base? 20 million for Billy Ray Cyrus? Isn't that stuff the examples of the 'worthless cookie-cutter garbage' you're referring to? So why did that worthless cookie-cutter garbage sell 20 million apiece in the '90s, but today's worthless cookie-cutter garbage doesn't?

Probably because compared to the rest of the worthless garbage that was being promoted at the time, this stuff was 1,000,000 times better -- which aint saying much!

But really, why do you think people spend exhorbitant amounts of money on designer clothes with a nametag ? Because they are of a better quality than something that costs 1/10 of the price ? Or is it simply because that's "what everybody else wants, because it's so popular" ?

And how does said designer clothing become so "popular" ? Is it not because of slick, sleek, larger-than-life, shove-it-down-the-masses throat advertising ? Ya know, the big bucks behind it -- the HYPE machine.

Does anyone for a second doubt that there are 50,000 other girls who could easily be a "britney" if they were just shoved down the throats of the masses with enough advertising ?

I think it would be a pretty funny joke if someone would acquire a pile of Paris Hilton's defecation, place it in a zip lock bag, and start an auction on Ebay. I'd bet my left nut that you'd see that ziplocked pile of shit selling in the thousands of dollars range. Why ? "Well, hey man that's PARIS HILTON's shit you're talking about !! I've just GOT to have that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" stike

[Dean Roddey]

Does anyone for a second doubt that there are 50,000 other girls who could easily be a "britney" if they were just shoved down the throats of the masses with enough advertising ?

Well, before the downloading thing, then there would have been a huge incentive to do, because of the money to be made. Why didn't a lot of people do it? There are plenty of people the means to do so in order to make a huge profit back (and they would have.) So that would kind of tend to indicate it's not as easy as you think. It would also not explain why 9 out of 10'ish acts fail to catch on. If it was purely a matter of promotion, I kind of have to think that the batting average would be way better.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by sage691

Probably because compared to the rest of the worthless garbage that was being promoted at the time, this stuff was 1,000,000 times better -- which aint saying much!

Not really, I can cite plenty of acts that I'd have considered better at the time. The reason those albums sold was because in most cases they had several big hits, and the album CD was still the only format in which music could be consumed, and music as an entertainment medium was still at the forefront of consumers' spending habits.

Today, music has lost so much intrinsic value, primarily because A. there is so much of it out there everywhere, and B. it can be consumed for free. Yes, quality is part of it, but not a primary consideration, given that the biggest sellers today are your Nickelbacks and Miley Cyruses.

The kids coming of age today were born into a world where to them the internet always existed, and music was always free (or easily acquired or listened to for free). The idea of them purchasing albums as individual commodities is like trying to sell someone the newest horse and buggy. Hell, I'm no spring chicken and I can't remember the last time I purchased an "album". Even with artists I come across that I like, more often than not I'll just listen to their stuff streaming on imeem, or fire up You Tube, and for the individual songs I like the best, maybe I'll buy the song on iTunes. And forget about CD's. I haven't purchased a physical music product in probably 2 years, not because there was nothing worthwhile, but because the CD is an obsolete method of listening to music, not just for me, but for more and more of the general buying public. And the precipitous drop in numbers in just the past 5 years bear this out.

People I know who have used Spotify say that it (or something like it) is the wave of the future, and I believe them. And the future is all about consuming music via bundled subscription and streaming, not purchasing individual albums, or even an ownership paradigm at all. Which means that in the future, how we gauge artists' success will be much more like radio airplay charts than they are album sales charts. The future beckons...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

If a label would be patient enough to properly develop the right talent over 10-15 years or so... maybe. The labels´ short term thinking is a big problem.

Then you would have to sign them when they are 10 years old.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Then you would have to sign them when they are 10 years old.

Would you GET YOUR FREAKING SIPPY CUP off the console, PLEASE? How many times do I have to say it? No SIPPY CUPS on the console. What's wrong? Well which one, number 1 or number 2?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Would you GET YOUR FREAKING SIPPY CUP off the console, PLEASE? How many times do I have to say it? No SIPPY CUPS on the console. What's wrong? Well which one, number 1 or number 2?

Sippy cups?

Don't get to hang much with young kids these days i guess?

MY niece who is eleven already drinks coffee.

She has an agent for modeling, acting and singing gigs. One of my good's friends kids who is ten years old already has college scouts coming out and watching his ball games. The name of the game is to start early and get these kids locked up to a contract while they are still young.

On that note Avril Lavigne was signed and developed for 2 years prior to the release of her first album. LA Reid believed in her that much. Its happened a couple of times recently. Its the one request i get from A&R's that they will not turn down, basically someone who is young(preteen or teen prefered), pretty(markatable) and super talented.

[Dean Roddey]

I was working on the assumption that if 10 is good, 5 is better. Got to get them into pre-teen starlet training camp.