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

by **jimmypages59** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:54 am

Probably got something to do with Abba being an extremely consistent and successful group, who produced many chart topping albums and singles over a sustained period of time, which helped ingrain their music into the general public's eyes, minds and ears.

I think their chart positions pretty much up until they split, are testament to the fact that they were an extremely popular act and remained so til the end. Even if the US never took to them in the way other countries did, this does not diminish their huge appeal and success, back in the 70's and early 80's. They did have 4 Top 20 albums in the US and were still managing a Top 10 single in 1980, six years after their first.

While Abba may not be critically praised in the same way Dylan, Zeppelin or The Beatles are, they are an extremely well loved act, who (certainly in the UK) have always been popular, with a well known back catalogue and a large fan base. Ace of Base, quite simply have none of the above and never extended into general life the way Abba did and do.

"Ace of Base had more impact". No, they had/have an album that sold more copies in the US (and probably worldwide) than any Abba studio album did.

I think a lot of your figures are out about Abba and AOB, which you should check before making the kind of statements you have.

On top of all that I actual find your whole ABBA/AOB argument quite weak, it seems too based on how you see things (and what you know about things) and is sort of contrived to defend or prove a point, but doesn't, because it is incorrect.

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:58 am

Jimmypages has a good point. ABBA had nearly a decade of consistency that has made them remembered as one of the premier pop bands of all time. AOB had one huge album and they were already on their way out with their second album. Not even comparable. Plus ABBA matured past their Waterloo/Mamma Mia initial impressions, AOB didn't.

ABBA basically invented Europop.

by **joao** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:42 am

Guys, I don´t know if you noticed it, but you are replyng me with exactly the same things I have said.

Abba´s music remained relevant for decades, Ace Of Base was a novelty act that lasted for only 1 album. That´s not like you discovered something new. :roll:

What I was sayng is that both acts made extremely cheesy and commercial pop songs. To anyone living in the 70´s, Abba´s music was very fun but not to be taken seriously like Led Zeppelin or Bob Dylan. Nobody would have thought back then their music would become "classic". I´m not throwing shade at them.

Do you fail to see how your argument is circular? An album is recognized as a classic because it becomes a perennial seller... or it becomes a perennial seller because it is recognized as a classic?

In a parallel world, AoB could have had a very sucessful 2nd and 3rd album, then the lead vocalist becomes a crazy drug addict and the band splits, then she goes to rehab, get pregnat of a random hollywood celebrity, the band makes a hyped comeback in 2008, and then she goes back to drugs and has a very publicized tragic death in all newspapers... in this paralell universe their debut album would be shifting millions of units decades after its release, and someone who claimed their music was just discartable cheesy pop would hear something like "how dare you not like something that is universally regarded as a classic and has survived the test of time?"

There are many factors that make the difference between artists remaining relevant and artists going away after just a few hits, and it´s not necessarily a matter of talent or their music having higher quality. Sometimes it´s just bad luck... Sometimes the artist itself doesn´t care enough about his celebrity status... Sometimes the artist just makes a mistake and is not forgiven by the public (think of the Milli Vanilli backlash after the grammys, or Sinnead O Connor´s Saturday Night Live appearence... I just happen to read an early 90´s article where she was mentioned as a promising new artist, lol).

by **joao** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:53 am

NothingFails wrote:Jimmypages has a good point. ABBA had nearly a decade of consistency that has made them remembered as one of the premier pop bands of all time. AOB had one huge album and they were already on their way out with their second album. Not even comparable. Plus ABBA matured past their Waterloo/Mamma Mia initial impressions, AOB didn't.

ABBA basically invented Europop.

Abba´s "maturity" phase coincided with their lowest chart sucess. The same goes for Madonna, Kylie, and any other big "fun pop" act that once decided to make a mature/experimental album. You can hardly say they owe their career longevity to these "mature" eras, when those eras coincided exactly with their lower point in sales, and they only became huge again after they went back to the "fun pop" songs. Their Greatest Hits album still sells today because of the fun cheesy pop commercial tracks, not because of the "mature/experimental" songs that are known only to their die-hard fans...

And after all, the quality of the material released after doesn´t alter the quality of the early material. "The Sign" wouldn´t have become a better album if AoB happened to release a very mature jazz album later. It would still be the very same album, with the same songs. :roll:

For example, Madonna´s "Like A Virgin" didn´t become a better album because of Madonna´s future hit albums and 25 year sucessful career. If "Like A Virgin" had been her last sucessful album, it would still have been the very same album, with the very same quality, tough it wouldn´t have become a classic.

This proves that that album status as a "classic" have nothing to do with the intrinsic quality of the album, but only with the fact that the artist has suceeded in remaining relevant for the following years.

"19" wouldn´t have become 2x platinum in the USA and a worldwide 5 million seller if it wasn´t for 21. But if Adele´s 2nd album had bombed like Duffy´s, would that make "19" a worse album? No. This just proves that an album´s longevity has nothing to do with its intrinsic quality.

by **HAL9000** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:59 am

joao wrote:If Michael and Madonna had not remained popular after their 80´s peak, Thriller and Like A Virgin would be remembered today as "fun pop that I used to hear when I was an 80´s kid" and not as "defining pop classics". They are fun pop too. I don´t think a record like The Sign is inferior to Madonna´s and Michael´s 80´s releases (that´s a subjective things, I know), but the reason that album has entered the list of "fun pop from the past that people do not take seriously today" instead of "defining pop classics" has nothing to do with the quality of the album itself, but with the fact that the band members are not celebrities today and they are not exposed in the media.

"Thriller" was a ultimate crossover album, mixing numerous genres and styles, pop (Thriller), r&b (Human Nature), r&b/funk (P.Y.T.), r&b/funk/dance (Billie Jean), rock (Beat It), soul (The Lady in My Life), dance/funk (Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'), soul/funk (Baby Be Mine)...
Analyze structure of each song, composition, listen to the lyrics of songs, diversity of the themes, numerous singing styles, oh man I do not know how can you be so shallow in judging work of art.
Thriller's socio-cultural impact is immense, with videos MJ revolutionized the music video industry, video become an art form not solely promotional tool. With "Thriller" MJ broke down so many barriers and changed the music industry forever.

joao wrote:Do you think Thriller would remain selling in such numbers until 2012 if it was Michael´s last release, of if the follow up "Bad" ended up being a disastrous flop? Do you really think the fact the artist has remained popular for several years and remained in the media spotlight for decades has nothing to do with its neverending sales, and it´s all due to the exceptional quality of the material released?

joao, maybe I lived in a different world because since the late 80s that "media spotlight" you are talking about was writing lies about Michael Jackson. According to media every album after "Thriller" was flop. You never heard for 'Wacko Jacko' crap, 'skin bleaching to become white' crap, 'child molestation' crap... He was constantly ridiculed. Yeah sure, that was a great advertising. :roll:

By the way read the article in my signature!

by **HAL9000** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:51 am

nibblet wrote:I know it appears that I am going off topic here but I am curious to open debate as to whether or not any album has had as much success as '21' in one year/14months of release, with the obvious exception of 'Thriller'?

Both "Bad" and "Dangerous" were massive sellers crossing 20 million mark in a year/year and half. Both albums were huge all over the world. 14 months after release of the "BAD" album its 7th single "Smooth Criminal" was released. 14 months after release, "Dangerous" also produced its 7th single "Give In to Me". Both albums had a massive promotional tours, the biggest ever at that time. Eventually both albums crossed 30 million mark, producing 9 singles.

Also let's not forget Celine Dion with two mega-albums "Falling into You" and "Let's Talk About Love", also Whitney's "The Bodyguard", all massive sellers after year/year and half...

by **jimmypages59** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:01 am

Guys, I don´t know if you noticed it, but you are replyng me with exactly the same things I have said.

Abba´s music remained relevant for decades, Ace Of Base was a novelty act that lasted for only 1 album. That´s not like you discovered something new

.

You did not just say what I said! You questioned the relative success of AOB against ABBA and asked why ABBA are more “universally regarded”, while inferring (incorrectly) that AOB “had more impact”, Revivals and Mama Mia are the probably reasons for ABBA’s enduring appeal, ABBA never had a Top 20 studio Album, AOB 2nd Album was more successful than any ABBA album.

To me, the key would be that ABBA possessed within their ranks, better, more skilled and more successful songwriters, who could be relied on, to come up with successful songs (and albums) time and time again, whereas AOB couldn’t.

Do you fail to see how your argument is circular? An album is recognized as a classic because it becomes a perennial seller... or it becomes a perennial seller because it is recognized as a classic?

How can my argument be circular, when I was not even arguing about this point? For the record “classic” in my eyes is not defined by sales, but by reaction, acclaim and critique. Some “classic” albums are poor sellers, while other “Non Classic” albums are great sellers. Album such as The Velvet Underground or Blonde on Blonde or Never Mind The Bolloxs, do not exactly fly of the shelves, but are still regarded as “classic”. To me it becomes “Classic” usually through the importance placed on it and the status it attains, not through the sales it achieves, although I am not saying that critical “classic” acclaim does not help shift albums.

I don't actually think of albums like Gold, Queen's Greatest Hits or Beatles 1, as "classic" albums, but compilations, yet these still fly of the shelves. They do not sell on the basis of being "classic", their selling power comes from the fact, that they are collections of what is thought to be the best, extremely popular and successful songs, from extemely prolific artists.

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:19 am

jimmypages59 wrote:How can my argument be circular, when I was not even arguing about this point? For the record “classic” in my eyes is not defined by sales, but by reaction, acclaim and critique. Some “classic” albums are poor sellers, while other “Non Classic” albums are great sellers. Album such as The Velvet Underground or Blonde on Blonde or Never Mind The Bolloxs, do not exactly fly of the shelves, but are still regarded as “classic”. To me it becomes “Classic” usually through the importance placed on it and the status it attains, not through the sales it achieves, although I am not saying that critical “classic” acclaim does not help shift albums.

I don't actually think of albums like Gold, Queen's Greatest Hits or Beatles 1, as "classic" albums, but compilations, yet these still fly of the shelves. They do not sell on the basis of being "classic", their selling power comes from the fact, that they are collections of what is thought to be the best, extremely popular and successful songs, from extemely prolific artists.

Agree with all of that. I even pointed earlier on that there are many "classics" that were poor sellers (like you mentioned, Velvet Underground And Nico being one of the biggies in that field). Albums like Thriller, Rumours, Purple Rain, Born In The U.S.A., Abbey Road, Tapestry, The Joshua Tree, Dark Side Of The Moon to name a few are examples of albums that were huge sellers and also regarded as classics and essential albums today. Yet on another shoe, Lionel Richie's "Can't Slow Down" (a good album mind you, but a very safe album) and Phil Collins' "No Jacket Required" (which personally I enjoy, but does anyone consider this album as important or essential today as they do "Face Value"?) were two massively successful 80's albums that even won AOTY Grammys, but don't generally show up on "1001 Albums" sorts of lists, they were good albums for their time and still hold up for the nostalgia factor, but they lack "classic" stature. And with the shoe on yet another foot, we have albums like "Let It Be" by The Replacements, "Daydream Nation" by Sonic Youth, "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys (which actually was a top 10 album, but it was initially a very poor selling album compared to the Beach Boys albums that preceded it), "Murmur" by R.E.M. and many others that didn't light the charts on fire, and even to this day might not be big selling albums (Pet Sounds has sold 200k in the Soundscan era, and this is after making all these "greatest albums ever" list usually ranked as high as the greatest Beatles works) yet are all regarded as classic and important albums.

by **HAL9000** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:20 am

jimmypages59 wrote:For the record “classic” in my eyes is not defined by sales, but by reaction, acclaim and critique. Some “classic” albums are poor sellers, while other “Non Classic” albums are great sellers. Album such as The Velvet Underground or Blonde on Blonde or Never Mind The Bolloxs, do not exactly fly of the shelves, but are still regarded as “classic”. To me it becomes “Classic” usually through the importance placed on it and the status it attains, not through the sales it achieves

+1

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:27 am

joao wrote:My point is not about JLP being a discartable album, it´s about how thickle those concepts like a "classic album" or "albums to be ashamed of" are. If Michael and Madonna had not remained popular after their 80´s peak, Thriller and Like A Virgin would be remembered today as "fun pop that I used to hear when I was an 80´s kid" and not as "defining pop classics". They are fun pop too. I don´t think a record like The Sign is inferior to Madonna´s and Michael´s 80´s releases (that´s a subjective things, I know), but the reason that album has entered the list of "fun pop from the past that people do not take seriously today" instead of "defining pop classics" has nothing to do with the quality of the album itself, but with the fact that the band members are not celebrities today and they are not exposed in the media.

I think "Like A Virgin" is generally regarded by Madonna fans as a fun 80's pop album but nothing especially amazing. Like A Prayer and Ray Of Light are the two that have generally been canonized as her most important and essential albums. LAV is precisely as you described it, a nice retro 80's album but nothing spectacular.

OTOH, "Thriller" is rightfully regarded as one of the greatest albums of all time. MJ had already established himself as a viable adult artist with Off The Wall, but Thriller took everything to a new level and even 30 years on I think has caused a lasting unparalleled impact in pop and r&b music to follow. True it has its moments that come off dated in 2012 (The Girl Is Mine and Human Nature) but still, its a timeless work and was MJ at the apex of his fame and power. I know many MJ fans who prefer Dangerous, but Thriller was still this lightning strike moment in time that will never be seen again.

by **WolfSpear** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:08 am

Just to add to the "classics that weren't initial classics" list. Astral Weeks is definitely one of those that doesn't quite have the sales or the chart position (completely missed I'm sure) but somehow it always gets listed somewhere in the top 20 range.

Plus Nick Drake's albums too ... though not exactly as much on All Time lists.

by **jules25** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:44 pm

Interesting points and analysis of Adele's "21".

What ever your take on it at least she has shown that an album can still achieve the unachievable, capture the worlds attention, sell bucket loads and spawn number 1 hits without compromising album sales or chart position.

by **Euromillions** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:58 pm

jules25 wrote:Interesting points and analysis of Adele's "21".

What ever your take on it at least she has shown that an album can still achieve the unachievable, capture the worlds attention, sell bucket loads and spawn number 1 hits without compromising album sales or chart position.

Yes, but according to some (rather pressed) individuals her success is down to having no competition, lol.

by **Play** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:23 pm

Euromillions wrote:
jules25 wrote:Interesting points and analysis of Adele's "21".

What ever your take on it at least she has shown that an album can still achieve the unachievable, capture the worlds attention, sell bucket loads and spawn number 1 hits without compromising album sales or chart position.
Yes, but according to some (rather pressed) individuals her success is down to having no competition, lol.

Not the sales but chart performance yes.

OMG I love Adele too, please don't do that.

by **ShayLaB** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:56 pm

Play wrote:
Euromillions wrote:
jules25 wrote:Interesting points and analysis of Adele's "21".

What ever your take on it at least she has shown that an album can still achieve the unachievable, capture the worlds attention, sell bucket loads and spawn number 1 hits without compromising album sales or chart position.
Yes, but according to some (rather pressed) individuals her success is down to having no competition, lol.
Not the sales but chart performance yes.

OMG I love Adele too, please don't do that.

+1

stan / pressed / troll / haters

The words should be starred out in a similar fashion as occurs when you type ****, **** or other profanities.

Her chart runs are absolutely amazing but part of that, especially in he US, has to be down to he fact that the music industry has real problems attracting a wider audience to other artists to oppose her position. Week on week 21 is selling strongly but not in such historically unrivallled amounts that there shouldn't be other artists popping up to challenge her position at the top of the US album chart, at least on a short term basis. It has taken a 62 yo veteran with a loyal fan base selling albums at a fraction of the volumes he managed 30 years ago to dethrone her. That's not a great reflection on emerging talents.

The fact Adele has achieved such amazing success demonstrates what can be done if you present the rght product to consumers. Her success is not just fantastic in itself but an indictment of the failure to cultivate other artists of similar appeal.

So, saying she has no competition is not to detract from her achievements but to recognise that the industry as a whole is failing. Her album is selling brilliantly but there have been similar sales in the past - the fact that she is trouncing the opposition so completely is a sad reflection on everything else.

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:37 pm

Play wrote:
Euromillions wrote:
jules25 wrote:Interesting points and analysis of Adele's "21".

What ever your take on it at least she has shown that an album can still achieve the unachievable, capture the worlds attention, sell bucket loads and spawn number 1 hits without compromising album sales or chart position.
Yes, but according to some (rather pressed) individuals her success is down to having no competition, lol.
Not the sales but chart performance yes.

OMG I love Adele too, please don't do that.

How many times has Euromillions been told to chill the "you guys are shaders!!!" argument?

I've f***ing said that even if f***ing Adele had five f***ing stronger competitors, it wouldn't affect Adele's f***ing sales (by your uberdefensive logic, shouldn't Thriller have sold less because of Springsteen, Prince, Def Lep and The Police. Huh? No? Then stop pulling this out of nowhere that competition would hurt Adele). How many times have we analyzed in the past when multiple diamond albums came out? Serious f***ing cut the f***ing "shading" and f***ing "haters" comments. Nobody is being negative or shading except you because you're such a f***ing defensive stan who thinks everything is against your icon. NOBODY IS! Deal with it. WTF. :lol:

by **HUR** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:19 pm

As I was the the first one who started with the 'non competition' argument (and I still maintain it), I have to say that I don't feel offended by his words at all.

I would only like Euromillions to be honest and come clean about the members who he is referring to when he talks about such things as 'MJ stans', 'Anti-Adele camp', and 'pressed individuals' and similar futile words. But he doesn't respond.

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:23 pm

HUR wrote:As I was the the first one who started with the 'non competition' argument (and I still maintain it), I have to say that I don't feel offended by his words at all.

I would only like Euromillions to be honest and come clean about the members whi he is referring to when he talks about such things as 'MJ stans', 'Anti-Adele camp', and 'pressed individuals' and similar futile words. But he doesn't respond.

We are *ALL* haters in his eyes :lol:

Seriously though, I'd love to know how he pulled the theory that "21 wouldn't sell as well with some stronger rivals" out of his butt. Nobody EVER said that. No one... ever. If I recall, the "competition" thing has more or less been used as why she is completely towering over the competition... nobody said she'd sell less with stronger competition, but that maybe everyone wouldn't be left so far in the dust in her trail. Nobody said she'd sell less with stronger competition, but an explanation why nobody else is going past double platinum and she's at 8x well on her way to diamond. But hey, that doesn't sound "hater" enough for Euromillions to get uberdefensive towards, so he has to do the only thing he can do to get defensive, throw spin and bs that wasn't even there because it's easier to pretend he's the only Adele fan in a world where she's flopping and everyone hates her.

by **stevyy** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:24 pm

NothingFails wrote:
I've f***ing said that even if f***ing Adele had five f***ing stronger competitors, it wouldn't affect Adele's f***ing sales (by your uberdefensive logic, shouldn't Thriller have sold less because of Springsteen, Prince, Def Lep and The Police. Huh? No? Then stop pulling this out of nowhere that competition would hurt Adele). How many times have we analyzed in the past when multiple diamond albums came out? Serious f***ing cut the f***ing "shading" and f***ing "haters" comments. Nobody is being negative or shading except you because you're such a f***ing defensive stan who thinks everything is against your icon. NOBODY IS! Deal with it. WTF.

lovely from start to finish.

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:26 pm

stevyy wrote:
NothingFails wrote:
I've f***ing said that even if f***ing Adele had five f***ing stronger competitors, it wouldn't affect Adele's f***ing sales (by your uberdefensive logic, shouldn't Thriller have sold less because of Springsteen, Prince, Def Lep and The Police. Huh? No? Then stop pulling this out of nowhere that competition would hurt Adele). How many times have we analyzed in the past when multiple diamond albums came out? Serious f***ing cut the f***ing "shading" and f***ing "haters" comments. Nobody is being negative or shading except you because you're such a f***ing defensive stan who thinks everything is against your icon. NOBODY IS! Deal with it. WTF.
lovely from start to finish.

haha thanks. I honestly wasn't that pissed, just figured maybe colorful language might actually get his attention since he keeps spinning everything to "Adele shade" as if she is some long-shot that nobody is supporting.

by **phoenix83** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:55 pm

joao wrote:
So why did Abba music became "classic" while AOB´s has fallen into "90´s eurotrash" category? I don´t see any qualitative difference between those acts. They have many things in common: both are nordic, boy-girl mixed group, and made pure fun pop music without any pretension to be serious or political.

Well for one thing AOB were around for like two albums and Abba were around for 8 yrs producing pop classic after pop classic. Outside the US, Abba are infinitely bigger than AOB ever were.

by **phoenix83** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:04 pm

NothingFails wrote: True it has its moments that come off dated in 2012 (The Girl Is Mine and Human Nature)

Human Nature's one of the best MJ songs of all!

by **NothingFails** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:46 pm

phoenix83 wrote:
NothingFails wrote: True it has its moments that come off dated in 2012 (The Girl Is Mine and Human Nature)
Human Nature's one of the best MJ songs of all!

I didn't say it was a bad song, but it is VERY 1982 in sounding. Much of Thriller still would've sounded current if released in 1989, but that song (largely due to the Toto influence, as they wrote and played on the song) really sets it to its time.

by **joao** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:36 am

HAL9000 wrote:
joao wrote:If Michael and Madonna had not remained popular after their 80´s peak, Thriller and Like A Virgin would be remembered today as "fun pop that I used to hear when I was an 80´s kid" and not as "defining pop classics". They are fun pop too. I don´t think a record like The Sign is inferior to Madonna´s and Michael´s 80´s releases (that´s a subjective things, I know), but the reason that album has entered the list of "fun pop from the past that people do not take seriously today" instead of "defining pop classics" has nothing to do with the quality of the album itself, but with the fact that the band members are not celebrities today and they are not exposed in the media.
"Thriller" was a ultimate crossover album, mixing numerous genres and styles, pop (Thriller), r&b (Human Nature), r&b/funk (P.Y.T.), r&b/funk/dance (Billie Jean), rock (Beat It), soul (The Lady in My Life), dance/funk (Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'), soul/funk (Baby Be Mine)...
Analyze structure of each song, composition, listen to the lyrics of songs, diversity of the themes, numerous singing styles, oh man I do not know how can you be so shallow in judging work of art.
Thriller's socio-cultural impact is immense, with videos MJ revolutionized the music video industry, video become an art form not solely promotional tool. With "Thriller" MJ broke down so many barriers and changed the music industry forever.

joao wrote:Do you think Thriller would remain selling in such numbers until 2012 if it was Michael´s last release, of if the follow up "Bad" ended up being a disastrous flop? Do you really think the fact the artist has remained popular for several years and remained in the media spotlight for decades has nothing to do with its neverending sales, and it´s all due to the exceptional quality of the material released?
joao, maybe I lived in a different world because since the late 80s that "media spotlight" you are talking about was writing lies about Michael Jackson. According to media every album after "Thriller" was flop. You never heard for 'Wacko Jacko' crap, 'skin bleaching to become white' crap, 'child molestation' crap... He was constantly ridiculed. Yeah sure, that was a great advertising.

By the way read the article in my signature!

I grew up in the 90´s, when Thriller was already old and MJ had already become an "abomination". And I remember growing up seeing him in the news (usually bad news), but everytime they mentioned something about her a little part of one of his classic songs were played.

That´s how I got to know the singles from Thriller and Bad when I was a kid.

So, being in evidence in the media, wether it´s for bad news or not, did help new generations to hear his music. Think how many kids were listening to Thriller the year he died. "Thriller" had not become better then it is just because MJ died, but his death made put his songs in evidence everywhere. I even got to know some of his older singles that I had not even noticed he released...

by **joao** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:47 am

jimmypages59 wrote:
You did not just say what I said! You questioned the relative success of AOB against ABBA and asked why ABBA are more “universally regarded”, while inferring (incorrectly) that AOB “had more impact”, Revivals and Mama Mia are the probably reasons for ABBA’s enduring appeal, ABBA never had a Top 20 studio Album, AOB 2nd Album was more successful than any ABBA album.

I didn´t say AoB had more impact then Abba overall. I did say that, on their big, they were having more impact in the USA then Abba did on theirs. They had a number one album, went x9 platinum with it, had 3 top 5 singles, etc. They were big, even if for just one year. Abba had never been big in the USA in the 70´s.

And I was actually mistaken about them not having a Top 20 album in the USA. They actually peaked at #14 with "The Album" and that was their highest before the Mamma Mia movie propelled their GH into the Top 10 (tough it was not eligible to chart at that point).