If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Digital Spy)   Elton John's longstanding chart record broken. By Justin Bieber   (digitalspy.com) divider line 84
    More: Sad, Justin Bieber, Carly Rae Jepsen, Candle in the Wind, Vevo, Internet radio, Bad Romance, Lana Del Rey, Ludacris  
•       •       •

2766 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 May 2013 at 11:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-19 08:47:04 PM
The Gay Agenda just keeps rolling on.
 
2013-05-19 08:53:22 PM
Proof that the End is nigh...
 
2013-05-19 08:54:59 PM
I know this is a dead ringer for a comic strip character, but I can recall who.

i2.cdnds.net
 
2013-05-19 09:34:56 PM
longstanding chart record broken. By Jus-

the-evan.com
 
2013-05-19 09:38:20 PM
Elton John is one of those artists I wish had died in his youth (well, not literally). The output in the 70s was outstanding. Now we hear him singing the Lion King soundtrack. Further proof that our favorite artists shouldn't have given up the booze and drugs.
 
2013-05-19 10:24:02 PM
Just having a random thought: Do all these silly numbers take per capita into account? I mean, there's at least a billion more people in the world now, and more ways to purchase and watch.  (By the way,hits on Vevo - where you have to reload to rewatch, hence giving another hit - count? Bullshiat.)

I swear the people who make up these numbers literally changed how they do so just so they could justify existing, with the added bonus of getting themselves in the news for breaking old records.  Either way, it won't ever change the fact that in fifty years we'll still talk about Elton, and the Beatles, and Queen, and all the original legends, and we'll look at Bieber and Minaj & Co. like we look at 1950s & 1960s pop and doo-wop singers.
 
2013-05-19 11:53:54 PM
i.imgur.com

Wow.
 
2013-05-19 11:55:54 PM

FriarReb98: Just having a random thought: Do all these silly numbers take per capita into account? I mean, there's at least a billion more people in the world now, and more ways to purchase and watch.  (By the way,hits on Vevo - where you have to reload to rewatch, hence giving another hit - count? Bullshiat.)

I swear the people who make up these numbers literally changed how they do so just so they could justify existing, with the added bonus of getting themselves in the news for breaking old records.  Either way, it won't ever change the fact that in fifty years we'll still talk about Elton, and the Beatles, and Queen, and all the original legends, and we'll look at Bieber and Minaj & Co. like we look at 1950s & 1960s pop and doo-wop singers.


What I came here to say.
 
2013-05-19 11:56:18 PM
They would make such a cute couple!
 
2013-05-20 12:00:49 AM
Only broken by figuring in streaming numbers.  So, does that actually mean that Justin Bieber really sold less than Elton John, but due to sites like Youtube and Vevo where you can stream for free, the numbers inflated to reflect both sold and non-sold downloads.  Does this mean that we should redo the figures for all recording artists before the internet to account for those like me who handed my blank cassette tapes to friends to record me a copy of that new album that they just purchased?

Also, shouldn't that make Rick Ashley like the number one recording star ever?
 
2013-05-20 12:01:33 AM
RTFA
 
2013-05-20 12:14:38 AM
Once again (see the Beatles/Abba thread) I'm sure Reg is crushed (he can afford to donate 100% of the profits from his songs to charity and still afford a better standard of living than you or I).
 
2013-05-20 12:15:34 AM

Ryker's Peninsula: They would make such a cute couple!


I'm pretty sure a gay relationship requires at least one penis...
 
2013-05-20 12:26:26 AM
How? I have never ever even accidentally heard a Beiber song. Can't say that about Elton John...
 
2013-05-20 12:29:54 AM

SpdrJay: Ryker's Peninsula: They would make such a cute couple!

I'm pretty sure a gay relationship requires at least one penis...


Technically, I think it requires at least two.  But a lesbian relationship doesn't require any.
 
2013-05-20 12:35:19 AM

Ryker's Peninsula: SpdrJay: Ryker's Peninsula: They would make such a cute couple!

I'm pretty sure a gay relationship requires at least one penis...

Technically, I think it requires at least two.  But a lesbian relationship doesn't require any.


Well then they could sing together but there is already a Scissor Sisters.
 
2013-05-20 12:47:23 AM

SpdrJay: Well then they could sing together but there is already a Scissor Sisters.


And they're better at being Elton John than he is these days.
 
2013-05-20 12:49:04 AM

SpdrJay: Ryker's Peninsula: SpdrJay: Ryker's Peninsula: They would make such a cute couple!

I'm pretty sure a gay relationship requires at least one penis...

Technically, I think it requires at least two.  But a lesbian relationship doesn't require any.

Well then they could sing together but there is already a Scissor Sisters.


Flaming Lips?
 
2013-05-20 12:49:18 AM
The Internet doesn't count.
Recorded music sales can only be tallied when you hafta walk out the door, get in your car, drive downtown or to the mall, enter a record store, say "I'd like this one, please," give the lady money and take it home.

That shows you're interested in the artist, and should therefore be counted toward his or her numbers.

Besides, we've already dismissed the Biebster from posterity. A little while longer in the sun and that sno-cone will be melted on the pavement.
 
2013-05-20 12:56:09 AM
It is easier to buy music than ever before, and the demographic buying music is easily twice what it was in the 70s.
The surprise is that records from that period aren't shattered daily.
 
2013-05-20 01:00:49 AM

unlikely: The surprise is that records from that period aren't shattered daily.


Easier to get the music, but also more variety and micro-genres. At least, that would be my guess.
 
2013-05-20 01:08:26 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: The Internet doesn't count.
Recorded music sales can only be tallied when you hafta walk out the door, get in your car, drive downtown or to the mall, enter a record store, say "I'd like this one, please," give the lady money and take it home.


The music I buy on the intertubes is generally unavailable in the stores near me.
 
2013-05-20 01:15:39 AM

unlikely: It is easier to buy music than ever before, and the demographic buying music is easily twice what it was in the 70s.


And somehow, the inflation-adjusted cost of buying an album of music is actually lower today than it was in the 1970s.

The LP that you might have paid $5 or $6 for in 1973 is now on iTunes for exactly $9.99, and bit cheaper on the stores that compete with iTunes.  If music kept pace with inflation, an album would be about $25 by now.

/and until MP3's decimated the CD market, we were going that way.
 
2013-05-20 01:18:47 AM

poot_rootbeer: The LP that you might have paid $5 or $6 for in 1973 is now on iTunes for exactly $9.99, and bit cheaper on the stores that compete with iTunes. If music kept pace with inflation, an album would be about $25 by now.


Recording technology has gotten a lot cheaper.  Middle class hobby money is enough to be able to produce quality recordings (from a technical standpoint)
 
2013-05-20 01:26:21 AM

Sid_6.7: unlikely: The surprise is that records from that period aren't shattered daily.

Easier to get the music, but also more variety and micro-genres. At least, that would be my guess.


This would make sense. So the way to smash records would be a) appeal to youth with disposable income, and b) cross genres for broader appeal.

That would also explain the Beeb's success.
 
2013-05-20 01:52:10 AM
Still no cure for pop masquarading as country
 
2013-05-20 02:10:20 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: The Internet doesn't count. Recorded music sales can only be tallied

...

I don't mind counting paid downloads towards sales, or to include free streams (suitably weighted) when compiling the charts. But to count YouTube/VEVO as *sales*, and claim that you've broken a sales record based on free streams? That's idiotic.  One million streams could easily be 100,000 people streaming it ten times each. You might as well try and count how often it's been listened to on the radio.
 
2013-05-20 02:49:29 AM

FriarReb98: Just having a random thought: Do all these silly numbers take per capita into account? I mean, there's at least a billion more people in the world now, and more ways to purchase and watch.  (By the way,hits on Vevo - where you have to reload to rewatch, hence giving another hit - count? Bullshiat.)
I swear the people who make up these numbers literally changed how they do so just so they could justify existing, with the added bonus of getting themselves in the news for breaking old records.  Either way, it won't ever change the fact that in fifty years we'll still talk about Elton, and the Beatles, and Queen, and all the original legends, and we'll look at Bieber and Minaj & Co. like we look at 1950s & 1960s pop and doo-wop singers.


Records are going to be broken anyway, simply from the global outreach of pop music and its accessibility via technology.

Worldwide advancement in consumer culture makes the pop music market 30-40x larger than it was two generations ago. Let's use the Beatles as an example:

The Beatles had maybe 15-20 countries tops that they could tour around: Western Europe, North America, maybe Brazil, and a couple Asian counties (Japan, Korea and the the Philippines essentially). That's it. The rest of the world was either too poor, too communist, or culturally inaccessible (and they were still kicked out of the Philippines). All told, they had a potential market of maybe 6-700 million people.

Today, consumerism is worldwide, and an artist is big on all five continents, especially South East Asia and South America, opening up a market of 3-4 billion people. So Bieber will crush anyone from a generation ago because he operates in markets that did not exist back then.

Furthermore, the pace of technology makes pop music readily accessible. Things had to be done manually back then: It took the Beatles two years of relentless writing, performing, playing and touring to make it big with Please Please Me. They had an estimated 40 million fans by that point. Kpop sensation Psy accumulated that many in a single day, with one song.

That's why today's pop music will always crush all previous pop music in sheer numbers. It's not a music thing, it's a capitalism thing.

/and movie box office records will always crush previous ones, despite all the apparent downloading
 
2013-05-20 02:51:04 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Recorded music sales can only be tallied when you hafta walk out the door, get in your car, drive downtown or to the mall, enter a record store, say "I'd like this one, please," give the lady money and take it home.

That shows you're interested in the artist music industry


FTFY.

/most of your money goes to lawyers and label overhead, not artists
//always has
 
2013-05-20 03:01:39 AM

poot_rootbeer: unlikely: It is easier to buy music than ever before, and the demographic buying music is easily twice what it was in the 70s.

And somehow, the inflation-adjusted cost of buying an album of music is actually lower today than it was in the 1970s.

The LP that you might have paid $5 or $6 for in 1973 is now on iTunes for exactly $9.99, and bit cheaper on the stores that compete with iTunes.  If music kept pace with inflation, an album would be about $25 by now.

/and until MP3's decimated the CD market, we were going that way.



Yep. Records started out 5 or 6 bucks, cassettes were about 10 bucks, and CD's were up around 14.
However, since mp3s don't require packaging, physical discs, or a factory to assemble them, it makes perfect sense that they can sell albums cheaper.

As for sales comparisons, who cares. Vanilla Ice's album sold 3 times more copies than London Calling. Doesn't make it a better album.
 
2013-05-20 03:41:44 AM
Important difference: I have heard everything Elton John has ever put out, and with few exceptions, I'll happily listen to them all again.

To this day I have never heard Justin Bieber sing, wouldn't recognize one of his songs if you put a gun to my head, and pretty much convinced the only thing he's done that I have any interest in is Selena Gomez:
cdn.rsvlts.com

So, Elton John is still in the lead here as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-05-20 03:41:50 AM
 
2013-05-20 03:44:43 AM
cdn.hark.com
 
2013-05-20 03:48:43 AM

dickfreckle: Elton John is one of those artists I wish had died in his youth (well, not literally). The output in the 70s was outstanding. Now we hear him singing the Lion King soundtrack. Further proof that our favorite artists shouldn't have given up the booze and drugs.


I think his output since "Songs from the West Coast" onward has been pretty darn good.
 
2013-05-20 03:58:29 AM
*sigh* So the Mayans were only off by a year....
 
2013-05-20 04:04:03 AM

dickfreckle: Elton John is one of those artists I wish had died in his youth (well, not literally). The output in the 70s was outstanding. Now we hear him singing the Lion King soundtrack. Further proof that our favorite artists shouldn't have given up the booze and drugs.


Hey, I liked "Can't you feel the love tonight?".
It wasn't on the same level as his old stuff, but it's still a good song.
 
2013-05-20 04:13:24 AM

LonMead: Important difference: I have heard everything Elton John has ever put out, and with few exceptions, I'll happily listen to them all again.

To this day I have never heard Justin Bieber sing, wouldn't recognize one of his songs if you put a gun to my head, and pretty much convinced the only thing he's done that I have any interest in is Selena Gomez:
[cdn.rsvlts.com image 760x1305]

So, Elton John is still in the lead here as far as I'm concerned.



Dude, her lips are giving off a serious herp alert vibe.
 
2013-05-20 04:21:43 AM

stoli n coke: Dude, her lips are giving off a serious herp alert vibe.


If the situation ever arises, I'll pay to have her tested. Would that makes things okay for you?
 
2013-05-20 04:24:02 AM
The fact that crap as godawful as "Baby" can set this sales record should be defense exhibit A in in any court case where RIAA is saying, "Waaaaaaaah!  Piracy is killing our sales!"
 
2013-05-20 04:48:00 AM

unlikely: It is easier to buy music than ever before, and the demographic buying music is easily twice what it was in the 70s.
The surprise is that records from that period aren't shattered daily.


It's down to The Long Tail. We have so many more sources of music and so many more places to buy it.

Back in the early 80s, the UK had a handful of national music radio channels, 3 TV shows playing music. You went into a record shop and they had around 100 different singles in stock.

This used to focus a lot of attention on a small number of artists. It used to be that you'd meet someone and you would know about the music they were listening to (even if you didn't like it). You can't say that today.
 
2013-05-20 04:51:02 AM

LonMead: stoli n coke: Dude, her lips are giving off a serious herp alert vibe.

If the situation ever arises, I'll pay to have her tested. Would that makes things okay for you?



Just pointing out that Gomez may have taken a few Things and It may not clear up by Wednesday.
 
2013-05-20 05:10:15 AM

hotstud69: RTFA


Bingo!
 
2013-05-20 07:08:29 AM
Why is it sad that one lame pop star breaks another lame pop star's record?
 
2013-05-20 07:27:29 AM

poot_rootbeer: And somehow, the inflation-adjusted cost of buying an album of music is actually lower today than it was in the 1970s.

The LP that you might have paid $5 or $6 for in 1973 is now on iTunes for exactly $9.99, and bit cheaper on the stores that compete with iTunes. If music kept pace with inflation, an album would be about $25 by now.


That would be because MP3s incur no manufacturing or shipping costs, and you don't have to pay mob-controlled "rack jobbers" to get them stocked in the iTunes store.
 
2013-05-20 07:31:49 AM
The kid is unstoppable. I don't listen to the radio at all, never watch MTV and I rarely go to clubs, yet I am familiar with 2 of his songs. Wait I said unstoppable, I meant INESCAPABLE.
 
2013-05-20 07:32:45 AM

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 295x207]

Wow.


If she put that on her head, she'd look like a Klansman from the year 3000.
 
2013-05-20 07:36:23 AM
Justin Bieber 19 years old. I think he's doing a pretty good job. And basically, from my heart, I really just want to say it should really be about the music, it should be about the craft that he's making. This is not a gimmick. He's an artist and should be taken seriously and all this other bull should not be spoken of.
 
2013-05-20 07:42:22 AM
An older pop star had his record beaten by a younger pop star, I'm so completely outraged.
 
2013-05-20 07:45:45 AM
The real question: Who would win in a fight.
 
2013-05-20 07:57:35 AM

Ishkur: That's why today's pop music will always crush all previous pop music in sheer numbers. It's not a music thing, it's a capitalism thing.


They're counting YouTube views, for crying out loud.  As far as I'm concerned, the "record" is anything but broken.  It's not even a valid record any more - used to be, but in today's world, different criteria apply, and that's all there is to it.  It's like comparing sports records from the 1950s with sports records of today.  Sure, you can put it in the history books, but realistically, it can't be done.

Bottom line:  Beiber's accomplishment, according to this article, sold over 3 million (i.e. people handed over good hard-earned money to purchase the product on that scale).  Pretty impressive.  Sir Elton John's sales?  33 million.  Case closed.
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report