Adele 21 - Trying to put things in some sort of context

[ShayLaB]

Illegal downloading is having an effect but nothing like to the extent that the music industry mak out. It suits them to play the martyr card.

Album sales are falling because single sales are going through the roof. I have seen the following written so often...

Rolling in the Deep - 6 million
Someone Like You - 5 million
Set Fire To The Rain - 3 million

...and alll this after the album has sold 7 million copies. Who is still buying this?

The people buying the singles are potential album buyer who don't need to bother. They are picking up the singles as they are cheap and don't need to bother with the more expensive album. Buying CD singles used to be expensive and it made sense to buy the album of a favourite artist - these days you can pick up the singles at rock bottom prices knowing that all he individual tracks can be added later.

[phoenix83]

You can't use illegal downloading to a sign of a lack of interest in music today. Look at legal sites like last.fm and Spotify and see the number of times songs have been listened to. There is still a market for music and songs are still being listened to in major numbers, the industry has just changed from the day where you had to run out and buy a copy of the album.

I think you misunderstood my point slightly, I was saying that due to shifting of consumer leisure tastes to other media i.e. video games, music is not more popular as an entertainment medium today than it ever has been, which is what the OP stated. This combined with more illegal/untraceable downloads mean that sales numbers of even the biggest albums cannot compare with yesteryear.

The Eagles' album sold 11 million years over 30 years of catalog sales. It peaked at #52 on initial release. Because a catalog album has managed to do so well after 30 years doesn't mean it was the competition to Thriller that say The Police, Def Leppard, U2, Prince and Phil Collins were as current releases in 1982-1983. "Legend" at this point has arguably equalled if not surpassed the sales of Born In The USA and Purple Rain for 1984, but despite it being this massive catalog title (over 10 million in the Soundscan era alone, starting 7 years after its release) doesn't mean in 1984 it was this super blockbuster album. It wasn't, it peaked at #54 while Prince and Bruce spent months on top (between July 1984 to January 1985, they held down the top 2 positions on Billboard with nobody breaking them until Madonna's Like A Virgin). But he outsells them today as a catalog title (as both Bruce and Prince have Greatest Hits albums that get the bulk of catalog sales while Legend is still seen as the definitive Bob Marley album). The Eagles have inched up over time, but for a long time, Thriller was by far selling more than its competition, but the Eagles album was certainly not competing with Thriller on the charts at the time of release. Catalog sales and what they were selling when current are totally different.

OK fair point. I wonder how much Synchronicity sold in the US, seems like that was the main competition for Thriller in the charts with 17 wks at the top in 1983.

[phoenix83]

I assume you are talking solely about raw sales numbers. An album selling more than 30 million copies worldwide (I know, 21 hasn't reached this yet) in an era of illegal downloading and consumer tastes shifting away from music purchasing is arguably as impressive as an album selling 50-60 million in a more favourable era. Therefore I don't believe it has "benefited from the situation" at all - in fact its sales numbers now are lower than they would have been in an earlier music-friendlier era!

This last one I don't agree with at all. As has been agreed by all 21 is tapping into a demographic that only buys a couple of albums a year.

..as well as being bought by those who do buy albums regularly.

studies have shown that the vast majority of illegal downloads are by the group that also buys the most albums. The sales of 21 are proportionally less likely to be impacted than most other contemporary releases. The people who indulge in illegal downloads are unlikely to be the demographic that are driving it's impressive sales.

Well, obviously not, as they are downloading it illegally...

I understand the argument that album sales are falling because of illegal downloads but, as someone who was there when cassettes were the norm, I can tell you home-taping was cheap-as-chips and common-as-muck. High speed recording meant that you could copy an album in about 10 minutes...roughly the time it takes to download.

I'll take your word on this.

Everybody says that downloading is killing album sales but the reality is that the likes of iTunes are doing the damage. The ability to listen to and cherry pick is removing the need to pay for the filler.

Compare the chart below with the one I posted earlier on album sales...you see the correlation?


Source

Yup - that is quite a scary graph!

Still, doesn't that prove that an album which is still selling 20-30 million copies in an era where you can pick and choose individual tracks to download is extremely impressive (and arguably more so than albums selling the same in previous eras). After all, as you say, no-one has to buy the album for certain tracks these days and yet millions still have.

If, as posted earlier, the population has risen by 30% in the intervening 30 years the pool of potential buyers is now much larger and the sales of 21 could be said to be less impressive in comparison. I just highlight this to illustrate that speculating what it could have sold decades before is completely pointless - you could also point out that albums are significantly less expensive in real terms than in years gone by. It just is what it is and every valid argument presented to inflate the sales of 21 can be countered with an argument to the contrary.

I agree to an extent - in that it's pointless positing what a particular album would have sold in another era. However I still think you're missing the point about changing consumer trends in leisure activities. 30 yrs ago there were very few video games, no internet, etc. and music purchases were one of the few entertainment outlets for people to spend their money on. Now the choice is much more diverse. So you can't just say "the population has risen by 30%, therefore the bestselling music album should have sold 30% more" - that would be implying a stable proportion of peoples' leisure budgets/tastes which is manifestly not the case.

[phoenix83]

The album carried on selling, to both regular buyers and casual buyers, and I believe, at the same proportion any other album has.

comparison is illogical, cause even tough the number of people that can buy a record today (what we call the "casual" buyers) is bigger then in the 80´s, you have to take into consideration that even tough most people can, they are much more unlikely to buy it then in the 80´s.

doesn´t take into consideration the fact that, if you wanted to hear Michael jackson music in the 80´s with good quality you HAD to buy it. Or you could tape it from a friend´s copy and hear it from a cassette tape with awful quality (but still, your friend would have to buy a legal copy...). But if you want to listen to Adele music in 2012, you can get it for free and with exactly the same quality. With means the number of "casual buyers" compared to the 80´s means nothing in this case.

The fact that singles are cheaper doesn´t mean it has become easier to get to #1, since singles are cheaper for all artists, and a cheap single has to compete with other cheap singles, while in the 80´s/90´s, an expensive single would have to compete with other expensive singles. That would only be a relevant fact if we were talking about total single sales (which are obviously much bigger now), but not when it comes to chart placings.

But it misses the point that fans who had an album back in the 80´s still had a reason to buy a single when it was released later. It was a physical object many people liked to collect. Right now, if you buy an album there´s absolutely no point in buyng the single later

Having said all that, I don´t actually think 21 is as big as Thriller, neither it will ever be. However, it´s very flawed to look at things that way.

If 21 sold 20 million copies legally worldwide, you can bet that there are a bazillion of people who have this music yet have not paid for it. This didn´t happen to Thriller or any 80´s/ 90´s release. The proportion of people who get music ilegally today is probably at least 4 times bigger then those who only buy legally. When you think 20 million homes own 21 legally, I shiver to think just how many million in the world had it for free. It could even end up as the most "owned" album of all time if there was a way to measure how many people have it ilegally.

THE TOTAL SALES OF 21 SO FAR ARE ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LISTENING TO 21 MUSIC AT THEIR HOMES. WHILE THE TOTAL SALES OF THRILLER IN THE 80´S WAS PROBABLY PRETTY CLOSE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE HEARING THRILLER MUSIC AT THEIR HOMES BACK THEN.

Some excellent points. Your last point in particular reflects what I was saying earlier - that is 30 million people legally buy "21" today, the actual number 'owning' it legally or illegally will likely be say 60 million.

[joao]

A big problem I would say that separates today from the 80's and 90's is that nowadays everything is front-loaded.

21 would have even more weeks at the top in a market that was less frontloaded. It´s run at the top wouldn´t have been interrupted by albums that only sold well for 1 or 2 weeks. Even an album like Born This way, which sold 1.1 million in its first week and had fallen below the 100k mark right in its 3rd week, woudln´t have been a threat in a market that worked like in the 80´s.

In the 80´s, a moderately sucessful album wouldn´t stand a chance reaching the #1. That means the run was easier for a blockbuster album to remain at the top for months. Right now, you have moderately sucessful albums, and even huge flops like Britney´s last album, interrupting Adele´s run at the top from time to time.

Well never was taking anything away from Adele's run, and if she would've had more weeks then than more power to her.

I do have a problem with the recording industry treating the first week like its the only one that matters. Like you mention, Born This Way, they worked so hard on ensuring it was going to have this blockbuster opening, but once it was over, it fell like a rock off a cliff because all Interscope wanted was that million-plus opening week and didn't care whether or not the album would still be selling 50-100k a week after it'd been out three-six months later.

Well, I don´t blame the industry for that. Lady Gaga failed to keep the interest going on, and that is not the industry´s fault. The thing is, it´s very easy to have acess to new music these days, even before the official release, and when a big act releases a new album everyone will hear it in the first weeks and then the interest fades away. Artists need the 3rd and 4th singles from their albums to be sucessful and to conquer the casual buyers which weren´t interested when the album originally came out, to sustain its chart run. That didn´t happen with Lady Gaga, even tough all her 5 singles from last album were extensively promoted... simply, the public had no interest in her latter singles and that´s not the industry´s fault.

With Adele´s next album, she won´t be the "exception" anymore... she´s a well known act and everyone is eager to hear more from her, so people will be downloading her next album days before the official release, and she is going to have giant debut week sales. She can sustain a nice chart run if the 3rd and 4th singles keep the interest going on (since these days even the 2nd single is usually released before the album itself...), but even if that happens, her sales will still be much more frontloaded then they were with 21. That´s not the industry´s fault... people will have acess to her new music as soon as it leaks.

[nibblet]

Nevertheless, "Thriller" spent 71 consecutive weeks in the Top 5 from January 1983 to May 1984 including 37 non-consecutive weeks at #1. In June 1984 (18/19 months after the album's release) another two all time great albums were released: "Purple Rain" by Prince and "Born in the U.S.A." by Bruce Springsteen [a small remark, which today's album should represent "Purple Rain" and "Born in the U.S.A." or some of the classics mentioned before? ].

Really great writeup as a whole. Re: Springsteen and Prince, those two albums came out right as Thriller was beginning its descent down the chart, so in a sense if "21" is this generations' "Thriller", then the Born In The USA and Purple Rain are still some months off from release.

Agreed.

'Born in the USA' and 'Purple Rain', imo, competed with 'Thriller' in the USA only in 1984 which was more than a year since its release.

'Thriller' faced its biggest competition with 'Pyromania' By Def Leppard in 1983 - and, of course, won by a big lead.

[nibblet]

And, I know I am arriving to this thread somewhat late, but, just wanted to say this is a fantastic thread and all credit to 'daveyboy'.

Other than its huge sales in todays weak market, what I find most interesting about '21' is that, unlike so many blockbusters of the past, it hasn't really generated a 'run' of hit singles.

I mean, 'Thriller', 'Born In The USA' and 'Hysteria' all spent 78+ weeks in the USA Top Ten. I believe these are the only three album in US chart history to spend 18 months inside the Top Ten.

And it is possibe that Adele will join this exclusive club.

But 'Thriller', 'Born In The USA' and 'Hysteria' all produced a run of 7 hit singles each.

Adele is enjoying an incredible run insude the US Top Ten without a series of hit singles!

[Edu]

nibblet:

Adele is enjoying an incredible run insude the US Top Ten without a series of hit singles!

That is not right!

"Rolling in the deep" (RIAA 6xP),
"Someone like you" (RIAA 4xP) and
"Set fire to rain" (RIAA 2xP)
were all number ones in the Hot-100...

if these are not hit-singles then what do you call hit-singles?

[Timmy94]

True, saying RITD, SLY and SFTTR are not huge hits is just ridiculous.
The chart runs of those tracks are better than the ones of the Thriller- or the Born In The USA-singles.

21's chart performance would be even more amazing than it already is if the singles wouldn't have turned into hits.
Like with Come Away With Me or Garth Brooks' albums when most people bought the album and didn't show interest in buying the singles seperately...

[stevyy]

True, saying RITD, SLY and SFTTR are not huge hits is just ridiculous.
The chart runs of those tracks are better than the ones of the Thriller- or the Born In The USA-singles.

that is true and yet we have to consider that never in the history of recorded music is was that easy to get a certain song (to actually buy it).. I'm also not certain if the singles market was that big.. i mean 27 million singles being sold in one week. During the (end of the) 90's - as I said before - 20 million singles have been sold in a calender year. I'm not sure how many LP-singles have been sold in a single week during the early 80's..

[NothingFails]

OK fair point. I wonder how much Synchronicity sold in the US, seems like that was the main competition for Thriller in the charts with 17 wks at the top in 1983.

Synchronicity has been certified for 8x over time, it was 5x at the end of 1984. According to Rolling Stone's year-end 1983 issue (issue dated 12/22/83, page 20), the album had sold 3 million copies up to December 1983 (in comparison, Thriller had already sold 10 million in the same article, Much like Adele now, Thriller *really* exploded in the first few months of 1984 and doubled its sales). Over time its sold fairly well as a catalog title, but only roughly 1/3.5th what Thriller has sold, and in 1983 this was the album that posed the biggest threat and held it off the top the longest. Another #1 album from 1983 (now certified at 6x) that was very successful in 1983 and mentioned in the article was the soundtrack to "Flashdance", which had sold 2.5 million by year end.

[phoenix83]

OK fair point. I wonder how much Synchronicity sold in the US, seems like that was the main competition for Thriller in the charts with 17 wks at the top in 1983.

Synchronicity has been certified for 8x over time, it was 5x at the end of 1984. According to Rolling Stone's year-end 1983 issue (issue dated 12/22/83, page 20), the album had sold 3 million copies up to December 1983 (in comparison, Thriller had already sold 10 million in the same article, Much like Adele now, Thriller *really* exploded in the first few months of 1984 and doubled its sales). Over time its sold fairly well as a catalog title, but only roughly 1/3.5th what Thriller has sold, and in 1983 this was the album that posed the biggest threat and held it off the top the longest. Another #1 album from 1983 (now certified at 6x) that was very successful in 1983 and mentioned in the article was the soundtrack to "Flashdance", which had sold 2.5 million by year end.

Interesting, thanks. So in 1983 it was roughly a 3:1 ratio between Thriller and Synchronicity. Sounds familiar...

[nibblet]

nibblet:

Adele is enjoying an incredible run insude the US Top Ten without a series of hit singles!

That is not right!

"Rolling in the deep" (RIAA 6xP),
"Someone like you" (RIAA 4xP) and
"Set fire to rain" (RIAA 2xP)
were all number ones in the Hot-100...

if these are not hit-singles then what do you call hit-singles?

I suggest you read my post again since you have clearly missed my point.

As I have already stated, it looks like 21 could be joining 'Thriller', 'Born In The USA' and 'Hysteria; as that elite group of albums which have spent more than 18 months/78 weeks inside the USA Top Ten.

3 'hit singles' from '21', be it very huge singles, are hardly a run of hit singles as per the 7 singles pulled off 'Hysteria', 'Born In The USA' and 'Thriller' pulled off.

[Timmy94]

So you mean that the singles aren't successful individually but you mean many successful singles from one album?
Teenage Dream/Rythm Nation/Come on Over-like?

[NothingFails]

nibblet:

Adele is enjoying an incredible run insude the US Top Ten without a series of hit singles!

That is not right!

"Rolling in the deep" (RIAA 6xP),
"Someone like you" (RIAA 4xP) and
"Set fire to rain" (RIAA 2xP)
were all number ones in the Hot-100...

if these are not hit-singles then what do you call hit-singles?

I suggest you read my post again since you have clearly missed my point.

As I have already stated, it looks like 21 could be joining 'Thriller', 'Born In The USA' and 'Hysteria; as that elite group of albums which have spent more than 18 months/78 weeks inside the USA Top Ten.

3 'hit singles' from '21', be it very huge singles, are hardly a run of hit singles as per the 7 singles pulled off 'Hysteria', 'Born In The USA' and 'Thriller' pulled off.

In fairness, 21 is still going on. MJ, Bruce and Def Leppard came out in an era (and I prefer that way of releasing singles) where new singles came out every 2-3 months and radio/MTV/consumers moved on as soon as the next one premiered. With Adele, radio is milking the songs for 5-6 months before moving onto the next one. Set Fire To The Rain proves it is 3 for 3, and Rumor Has It will undoubtedly follow it up the charts.

Personally I can rant about how I prefer the days of Thriller/Born In The USA/Hysteria where a song would have its 2-3 months before the next single comes along, but that's another rant.

[nibblet]

OK fair point. I wonder how much Synchronicity sold in the US, seems like that was the main competition for Thriller in the charts with 17 wks at the top in 1983.

Synchronicity has been certified for 8x over time, it was 5x at the end of 1984. According to Rolling Stone's year-end 1983 issue (issue dated 12/22/83, page 20), the album had sold 3 million copies up to December 1983 (in comparison, Thriller had already sold 10 million in the same article, Much like Adele now, Thriller *really* exploded in the first few months of 1984 and doubled its sales). Over time its sold fairly well as a catalog title, but only roughly 1/3.5th what Thriller has sold, and in 1983 this was the album that posed the biggest threat and held it off the top the longest. Another #1 album from 1983 (now certified at 6x) that was very successful in 1983 and mentioned in the article was the soundtrack to "Flashdance", which had sold 2.5 million by year end.

Def Leppard's 'Pyromania' was Thriller's nearest competitor in 1983 in the USA. The album shifted 6 million by the close of 1983 and included a 39 week chart run inside the Top Ten.

[NothingFails]

OK fair point. I wonder how much Synchronicity sold in the US, seems like that was the main competition for Thriller in the charts with 17 wks at the top in 1983.

Synchronicity has been certified for 8x over time, it was 5x at the end of 1984. According to Rolling Stone's year-end 1983 issue (issue dated 12/22/83, page 20), the album had sold 3 million copies up to December 1983 (in comparison, Thriller had already sold 10 million in the same article, Much like Adele now, Thriller *really* exploded in the first few months of 1984 and doubled its sales). Over time its sold fairly well as a catalog title, but only roughly 1/3.5th what Thriller has sold, and in 1983 this was the album that posed the biggest threat and held it off the top the longest. Another #1 album from 1983 (now certified at 6x) that was very successful in 1983 and mentioned in the article was the soundtrack to "Flashdance", which had sold 2.5 million by year end.

Def Leppard's 'Pyromania' was Thriller's nearest competitor in 1983 in the USA. The album shifted 6 million by the close of 1983 and included a 39 week chart run inside the Top Ten.

Fair enough, but Synchronicity still spent 17 weeks at #1. And it was certified 6x in Oct 1984, so it likely might've sold 1-2 million of that in 84 as well.

[nibblet]

So you mean that the singles aren't successful individually but you mean many successful singles from one album?
Teenage Dream/Rythm Nation/Come on Over-like?

No.

What I meant was that I find it odd (spectacular) that an album which has only lifted 3 singles looks on track to enjoy a Top Ten chart run length that has previously been only enjoyed by albums that have pulled off seven singles.

Of course, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that there will not be any more singles.

[NothingFails]

So you mean that the singles aren't successful individually but you mean many successful singles from one album?
Teenage Dream/Rythm Nation/Come on Over-like?

No.

What I meant was that I find it odd (spectacular) that an album which has only lifted 3 singles looks on track to enjoy a Top Ten chart run length that has previously been only enjoyed by albums that have pulled off seven singles.

Of course, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that there will not be any more singles.

Rumor Has It has already been sent to radio a week or two ago, and I've heard mumblings about Turning Tables also.

[nibblet]

So you mean that the singles aren't successful individually but you mean many successful singles from one album?
Teenage Dream/Rythm Nation/Come on Over-like?

No.

What I meant was that I find it odd (spectacular) that an album which has only lifted 3 singles looks on track to enjoy a Top Ten chart run length that has previously been only enjoyed by albums that have pulled off seven singles.

Of course, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that there will not be any more singles.

Rumor Has It has already been sent to radio a week or two ago, and I've heard mumblings about Turning Tables also.

Ah, well that somewhat mutes my point about '21' acheiving what it has/will do with 'only' 3 singles.

As for 'Turning Tables', the 'Royal Albert Hall' video is screening across Fitness First gyms in Europe so perhaps it is being lined up as a single.

[nibblet]

Also, not sure if this has been pointed out prior to now, but I don't believe this album has been subject to a 'deluxe' edition re-issue as is the case with so many albums these days whisst less that a year or so old.

I have a lot of respect for this!

[Edu]

NothingFails

Fair enough, but Synchronicity still spent 17 weeks at #1. And it was certified 6x in Oct 1984, so it likely might've sold 1-2 million of that in 84 as well.

It was not six million, but four-million in november 1984. From the same label in the same month (11/1984) we got also "breakfast in america", with four-million and "frampton comes alive" at six-million.

[joao]

I definitely can see 21 spending as much time in the Top 10 as Thriller did. Considering these days you need to sell just 25k in an average week to get a top 10 placing, and Adele has been steady above the 100k marks for months, even before the Grammy effect, and right now she seems to be stable above the 200k mark, even if the subsequent singles fail and she decides to not to any promo, and the album sales keep falling gradually, it would still take AGES before this album falls below the 25k mark. And that is the WORST SCENARIO possible, cause being realistic, the 4th single is already shaping up to be big and it would be stupid to not release at least 1 more single after that. And I still expect Adele to do at least a few TV performances this year, which would always generate enormous buzz given her current status.

I believe 21 will drop out of the Top 10 in USA for the first time during november, when the amount of sales required for a top 10 placing is higher and there are many new releases. That would give her 30 more consecutive weeks in the top 10, which would rank 21 easily among the biggest albums of all time. Of course that´s just a prediction, but I don´t think it´s very wild or nuts at all. Even if the next singles are only moderately sucessful or even relative flops, I think this album will end up with at least 80 weeks in the top 10.

[NothingFails]

NothingFails

Fair enough, but Synchronicity still spent 17 weeks at #1. And it was certified 6x in Oct 1984, so it likely might've sold 1-2 million of that in 84 as well.

It was not six million, but four-million in november 1984. From the same label in the same month (11/1984) we got also "breakfast in america", with four-million and "frampton comes alive" at six-million.

Pyromania was 6 million in Oct 1984 (its now diamond, last certified in 2004), I checked RIAA to be sure before posting

[WolfSpear]

I believe 21 will drop out of the Top 10 in USA for the first time during november, when the amount of sales required for a top 10 placing is higher and there are many new releases. That would give her 30 more consecutive weeks in the top 10, which would rank 21 easily among the biggest albums of all time. Of course that´s just a prediction, but I don´t think it´s very wild or nuts at all. Even if the next singles are only moderately sucessful or even relative flops, I think this album will end up with at least 80 weeks in the top 10.

Well ... November isn't a bad guess. I have a feeling it's staying power is going to rust and one of these weeks the chart will get 6-8 debuts in the top 10 to knock it out.