alek wrote:again , you are only bla bla bla , and you can t explain nothing
This bla bla bla is called discussion if you didn't know.
What do you want me to explain? We're just estimating anyway so I explained why I find your figures inflated by comparing comparable markets and chart runs.
alek wrote:the certications are in almost of cases according to sales...then why certications exist ?,really you never will convince me...
I'm not trying to convince you. Certifications reflect shipments, stocks sent to record stores and other retailers, not bought by the consumers.
alek wrote:and why i can t compare mexico with italy ,in mexico artists sell well like in italy, thalia has sold more than 520,000 in mexico with her last album , and i guess any artist can do that in italy, Alejandra guzman has sold like 2,000,000 copies with her eternamente bella album
You can compare whatever you want. The markets are completely different though so I'll be careful and won't put them side by side. Since when Mexico or Italy publish sales data anyway? Even though I hardly know the quoted artists, knowing you I have every right to suspect these numbers were inflated just like your estimations of MDNA's sales...
alek wrote:in the 90s in mexico as well madonna had a dymond album in italy , but in italy artists sell more than mexico in the most cases , who cares if mexico has almost twice of population or if now mexico is in a better economic situation than italy, it depends how people in the countries like the album +a good promo in the countries , the fact is that it doesn t matter all the excuses that you say, because you don t want to realize that you are wrong .
It's true that Mexico's population is twice the Italian one but have you ever been to Italy? In Europe you won't ever find slums or people living under the level of poverty which is very common in Central and South America. This is why in spite of economic crisis touching Europe, the life quality is totally different on these shores and any comparisons fail because they're hardly measurable. It's absolutely possible that some artists sell better in Mexico and some others in Italy but if we take 2 countries from the European universe with totally different populations like Germany and Norway, the possibility of sales from the latter surpassing the former is highly unlikely, and strictly impossible if the chart runs were similar.
alek wrote:again what is the problem ?, if MDNA has sold 40,000 in holland, and 67,000 in Germany to date , it shows that Holland like more MDNA than Germany till now , so easy
It would if the figures were official and not taken from the top of your head
Respective chart runs show clearly that there's something wrong with these numbers...
Timmy94 wrote:LMFAO'current studio album never looked like it flopped. It might have looked ridiculous compared to their singles success but it still did far more than their first album, which was hardly noticed. Therefore it was a success (if their first album was sold 5 mio. times, it would've obviously been different).
As you can see perspectives and points of view differ. For me the fact how an unknown first album of a then unknown band fared has nothing to do with the follower's success. Having such a monster hit like Patry Rock Anthem on its back, it should have done well better than what MusicWeek wrote after the album's first 2 months on the shelves:"Sexy And I Know It jumps 20-7 (39,624 sales) for LMFAO. It is the third hit from their album Sorry For Party Rocking, following the number one hit Party Rock Anthem (feat. Lauren Bennett and GoonRock) and Champagne Showers (feat. Natalie Kills), which got to number 32. It sparks a revival in fortunes for the album, which sprints 126-80 (1,945 sales), though after 10 weeks it has sold just 24,664 copies, whereas Party Rock Anthem has sold 920,001 copies."
Yet again, it's only the UK so you're right by saying that in many other markets it didn't look like dead in its initial stage of the chart life but the rapid slumps in many countries led to believe the band would never pierce the albums market.
Timmy94 wrote:Impact =/= success: An album could've flopped, but still have its impact, therefore they don't have to mean the same.
They don't mean the same obviously but impact is part of the success in my opinion. I'd never call flops some of the critically acclaimed albums that have been considered as cult by many even if their results were lower than selling power of the respective artist. It's just a commercial underperformance but the mark was left in the legions of so-called believers (I don't know but Radiohead and Depeche Mode spring to my mind almost immediately when I think of this kind of situation, hardly any real flops).
Timmy94 wrote:Falling off the chart after 10 weeks for someone as big as Madonna is bad and just the fact that it hit No.-1 doesn't mean anything. It's true that No.-1 means being the biggest selling album of the week, but that can also mean selling 80k in a week (Adam Lambert) or 13k in a week (Emeli Sande). Plus, what means being No. 1 when you can hardly double the opening sales (which weren't so high that they would balance the frontloading anyway).
No-one says it isn't bad for Madonna's standards but a flop means something more serious to me. When an artist used to sell millions and suddenly goes down to as low as 50,000 - OK, this situation may be an immediate flop practically without considering other circumstances. An example of J.Lo's "Brave" rings my bell or the second album of Melanie B (which reached, if I remember correctly, number 466 or something in the UK)
Timmy94 wrote:Keane, Arctic Monkeys and Norah Jones are steadily falling in sales, but that neither means that they can't be successful again... It might be hard but the other way around, why shouldn't we call their albums flop if they just can't stop the declining trend?
The market's condition is bad, that's true, but we shouldn't be dictated from it and still have certain expectations...
True, everyone can have his turning point but in a declining music market it's so difficult that reversing a declining trend will probably still not match the artist's days of glory (look at COADF - a huge success and a very significant comeback didn't propel as many sales as Music a few years back even though I dare claiming that Music's impact and relative popularity wasn't as big as the one of COADF outside of America. We can of course tag every "diminishing-returns" type of artist's subsequent album a flop but as long as it manages to battle off the competition to scrape high debuts and doesn't end up its chart life 3 weeks later, for me it's not at all a disaster so underperformance is the most suitable term for it.
Timmy94 wrote:A flop isn't the totsl worst case that can happen, it's just when an album sells far less than expected and when Madonna never had a studio album that sold less than 4 mio. copies (official numbers) and MDNA is going to sell 2 mio. copies in the best case, the term "flop" is justified especially looking at its chart performance all around the world.
Remixed & Revisited was a remix album, so it could hardly live to any expectations, that's why I ignore it here.
I guess we'll never find the right definition then as for me flop equals total failure to spur any or close to any interest whatsoever.