This is an equation that is often misunderstood. It’s not to be confused with “quality=sales” because as we all know, there have been a plethora of albums that haven’t sold very well. But that doesn’t stop them from being “quality” albums.
The reason I wanted to make this thread is because I often hear people say, and I quote “just because it sells, doesn’t mean its good.” But on that same token, I feel like the people who make this assertion are the same people that get the two equations mixed up, as “sales = quality” is not the same thing as “quality = sales.”
Let’s take Britney Spears for example. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Britney is the best selling female artist of the decade, with something like 80+ million albums sold worldwide. However, her music is often dismissed as being nothing but pop dreck. But can 80 million people really be wrong? Each of those 80 million people have a reason as to why they think Britney is good, hence they own her albums. In this case, sales can be quoted to speak for the individuals. If each of those 80 million people that purchased Britney’s albums didn’t have a reason to think she was any good, then they wouldn’t think she was good, and they wouldn’t have purchased her albums.
In regards to “quality = sales”, it is obviously inaccurate. As previously stated, there have been many quality albums that have “flopped”, for lack of a better term. But a lack of commercial success doesn’t take away from the quality. An album can be considered good, and flop. But if an album sells well, can it really be considered bad?
When discussing likes and dislikes, the general consensus is all that’s needed to establish a win. If 80 million people say Britney is good, then that’s enough for her to be considered good…or in other words, she’s doing something right.
You have a good point but you have to consider who is buying the albums and their oppinion of "quality". Since Britney is brought up, I'll continue with her. Yes Britney's music is not Mozart or epic masterpieces and considered "bad" by the overall population, I bet even her diehard fans will admit that, but for what it's meant to be, catchy pop tunes to enjoy, they do their job pretty well, they are perfect for that. So in that way they are considered "quality" in that area.
I do see where you're coming from and what you're saying but I won't agree on what you are saying since partially I can't take it in right now I'm still processing it and there are other points that I'd like to bring up as well, but will do later when I'm not half asleep.
You also have to consider who is buying and their point of view on "quality", If sales did = quality then right now it just proves the sad state of mind people are in for the most part.
Posts: 5527 | Location: Denver, CO | Registered: October 29, 2007
Originally posted by A_Mb88: You have a good point but you have to consider who is buying the albums and their oppinion of "quality". Since Britney is brought up, I'll continue with her. Yes Britney's music is not Mozart or epic masterpieces and considered "bad" by the overall population, I bet even her diehard fans will admit that, but for what it's meant to be, catchy pop tunes to enjoy, they do their job pretty well, they are perfect for that. So in that way they are considered "quality" in that area.
I do see where you're coming from and what you're saying but I won't agree on what you are saying since partially I can't take it in right now I'm still processing it and there are other points that I'd like to bring up as well, but will do later when I'm not half asleep.
You also have to consider who is buying and their point of view on "quality", If sales did = quality then right now it just proves the sad state of mind people are in for the most part.
The bolded is very true, which I think is another problem people have.
You can listen to a song, album etc and hear the "quality" behind it, even if you don't like it or consider it to not be very good.
But in that same regard, even if you don't like it, it still doesn't mean it's not good, especially if the vast majority disagrees with you.
Because, again, the general consensus is all that's needed to establish a win.
So if 80 million people say that Britney is good enough to spend money on, then that would definitely hold weight relative to everyone else.
First off, welcome back, Be! I was wondering where you were for all of those months.
Anyways, quality is subjective. Let me just say that.
I don't think sales automatically determine quality. For example, just because Britney sold 80 million records, doesn't mean all of the people who bought those records enjoyed them. I, for one, have bought records that I didn't like. Of course, this was in the past before it was easy to listen to the album and download it before spending my money.
Sales is just something fans and some artists like to gloat over. It's like bragging rights. But sales determine whether you were popular enough to spark people's interest. I don't know.
You also have to look at some of the sales being more about the artist then the album. If an artist is big like Brittney, Mariah, etc...they are going to sell quite a few albums based on their fan base buying the album based on almost name recognition alone.
And as musicluva123 pointed out, I myself have bought plenty of albums because I liked a single or just out of pure curiosity. However, if you asked me about the quality of those albums...well some of them were crap. The same thing applies to movies (and even TV) just because a lot of people pay to go see GI Joe or Wolverine doesn't mean all those people will tell you it is a quality film that is one of the years best. sales=mass appeal (for one reason or another) but not necessairly quality
FYC-Album of the Year: Maxwell's BLACKsummers'night
And is generating mass appeal really a bad thing? Because getting the win, ultimately, is based heavily on the general consensus and appealing to the masses. And to most people, getting the win is far more important than giving the truth.
And also remember that the idea is if it sells, then it's quality. Not if it's quality, then it's gonna sell.
I just used Britney as an example. But I remember this topic being serious on other boards when MJ died, as people were saying "Thriller" is the greatest album of all time because it's the most successful - 109 million albums sold. Where there's smoke, there's fire. 109 million albums is a lot of smoke, just as 80 million is a lot of smoke. Don't fight it lol.
That's why a consensus is such an essential part of this because, as musicluva123 pointed out, quality is all about opinions and preferences.
I don't know, but anybody that sells that many albums continuously to the point where they reach some astronomical number, it speaks volumes about their artistry, as it takes a certain level of talent to be able to connect to that many people.
Of course she is gonna sell 80 million, her label invested massive marketing dollars into her and it worked. Still doesn't mean that her sales = quality. Like someone else said, you got to factor in what were the real reasons people bought these albums. In Britney's case, Sales = popularity.
MJ was the last true representation of Sales = Quality, it was a given with him.
People may identify with the artist and really love them and buy the album, so yes the artist does have the "talent" of appealing to a lot of people. However, that doesn't make everything that the artist does quality.
You really have to determine WHY people are buying, which is really hard/impossible to do. Look at some of the threads here that are basically a grouping of that singers fans. When they release a new album most of those people buy the album...but most of those same people would probably tell you that the album wasn't one of the years best. Yes I think a general consensus is needed for someone to win, but the consensus needs to come from the majority saying they think the album is the best NOT just by the simple act of purchasing it
FYC-Album of the Year: Maxwell's BLACKsummers'night
I think there's also a debate in terms of art, quality, etc. with respect to critics versus general fans of music.
"Quality" in general means different things to these two parties (they are not always mutually exclusive, but for arguments-sake, let's assume they are--and, really, that's not too far of a stretch).
A critic usually judges "quality" from an artistry point of view. For example: How innovative is the album? How daring is the album? How relevant is the album? An artist like Bjork (who, might I say, is brilliant) is a critical darling because she stretches artistic limits, musically, and brings something fairly unique to the game. While she does have fans, her music does not appeal to the majority of the public. It's true, you cannot please every one, but if you do something polarizing, like Bjork, you're going to please even less people. As a result, she's not a commercial superstar.
The general fans of music do not care about how challenging or unsafe an album is. Their interpretation of "quality" is based on enjoyability, relatability, and accessibility. Just ask: why do people listen to music? I don't think any one would argue against a probable common answer: "because it's just fun and pleasant." People also listen to music for relatability/therapy: when you're in love, those love songs are so sweet; when you just had a nasty break up, those f*ck off anthems are exactly what you need; when you're looking to have fun and be silly, Britney is awesome and gets you in the mood to dance and tease boys--whatever tickles your fancy. Obviously, music that's more "generic" will have greater probabilities for fans to both enjoy it and relate to it. Since fans greatly outweigh critics, music along these lines will be the better-sellers.
There are many instances when quality for critics agrees with quality for fans, and often these albums are so sweet: Songs in A Minor, American Idiot, Back To Black, etc. One thing we can say about fans, though, is that their appreciation for music and their decisions to embrace music they think is of high quality is independent of what critics think. I will buy an album if I like it even if Rolling Stone said it was complete trash. Similarly, critics don't care about commercial success in their grades; in response to the question: can 80 million people be wrong? Their answer is "yes."
So who's right? Personally, I can understand the critical aspect of judging music's quality from an artistic point of view, but, at the same time, I am a fan of music, and I listen to music for fun most of the time. To me, enjoyability is far more important than an album being considered "good" in the eyes of an "expert." So, I would tend to agree with general fans while appreciating (with a grain of salt) what critics have to say.
Do Sales = Quality? No. What is my proof? Nickleback. Enough said.
So what do sales = to? Sales = Success. That's it. Plain and simple.
The Britney arguement...does she make quality music based on sales? No. Some would argue that she makes quality dance/pop music while others would call her trash. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, b/c those sales just simply make her a successful artist and one that will be remembered despite quality. Now of course, bad quality won't lead to sales which won't lead to success, so SOME quality needs to be associated with the artist, but then again...Nickleback.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 24fanatic,
For Your Grammy Consideration: Kanye West for "Heartless" and 808's & Heartbreak Adele for "Hometown Glory" Taylor Swift for "You Belong With Me" & Fearless Maxwell for "Pretty Wings" & BLACKsummer'snight Kings of Leon for "Use Somebody" The Cast of GLEE for "Don't Stop Believin' " Mariah Carey for "Obsessed"
Anway it all depends on the Artist as to what quality is. Obviously 80 Million People like Britney Spears enough to buy her albums but just because everyone purchases them doesnt mean they enjoy them. I have bought tons on Albums that have sucked in quality but they still went on to sell Millions of copies. People also forget that if you keep cranking out the hit singles (Like Rihanna or Beyonce) that will generate more interest in the album and sales will go up. Alot of people only find that singles released from the album are the only good parts of the album and the rest of the album is crap but as I said in the beginning this is all depending on the Artist,IMO!
Britney is a special case cause she was a phenomenom, she filled a space that was empty in the late 90s a decade where rock was the mainstream all over the world. BUt I think marketing take the most important place in sales, now we know about albums that we said, "With more promotion it would sell better" or " bad single choices".
Hannah Montana albums are not the best, but are fullfilling a market.
Its all about tendencies, promotion, and money in all the ways.
With the Britney example, i think it just means that her music is easy to consume. It doesn't require any thinking, it comes on the radio every 3 seconds, she is visible everywhere etc. Its convinient, like McDonalds.
Once something has the stigma of being 'popular', people will listen to it simply to keep up with what is going on in pop culture and in the music world. As much as I may dislike Britney Spears as an artist, I still am going to probably listen to a new song she puts out so that I can keep up with what other people are listening to.
If enough marketing dollars and promotion spots are pumped into a single or an album and the general public think it's the new hot thing, then it's no surprise that it sells. I think Sales only tell you that something is popular and has nothing to do with quality. Occassionally, the two coincide, but there is no correlation.
Posts: 955 | Location: USA | Registered: November 29, 2002
