I notice there is often tendency to look at the peak positions of songs/albums for artists to determine success with overall sales not being accounted for - even in the media.

So which would you rather, the tile of having 3 #1 singles but very front loaded sales... or having 3 triple platinum #14*'s (highly unlikely but w/e). :lol:

Edit; my polls never work :heehee:.

Edited April 1, 201015 yr by Jamieed

I think us chart fans and record companies focus on the obvious, the sales as it should be but the general public don't get to see the info and that makes a #1 a bigger success than a huge selling #2.

Edit; my polls never work :heehee:.

What would you like in the poll? I can edit for you.

^think I got it! Thanks ;)

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by Jamieed

I do love looking at peaks but now as the music industry is changing I would have to say sales.

definitely #1's.

It's definitely the sales that matter more than the peaks.

If it was me releasing songs, I would prefer the #1's cos that's more of an achievement. But I'd rather my favourite act sell loads than get a #1 single.

Personally it's the #1s that are more impressive to me, as it's the first things I look at, but I do like it if they have high sales too -_-

I think us chart fans and record companies focus on the obvious, the sales as it should be but the general public don't get to see the info and that makes a #1 a bigger success than a huge selling #2.

Agree with this. Sales aren't in public domain so peaks are always referred to.

 

For me, I would say peak positions as well out of these scenarios. A #1 single is much more impressive to have on your resume, and outside of chart fans most people would not even bother about how much it sold. Sales change so drastically over time that it's impossible to refer to them as a constant, unless you start doing complicated inflation figures. Nowadays #1 singles from 2005 get outsold by an average #6 hit from 2009, even though it was nowhere near as successful. Having 3 long-running #14s in 2005 would probably barely muster much sales, compared to in 2009 when it could be an awful lot more. Peak positions are not reliable because of the likes of McFly and Westlife manipulating their way to number ones only to drop off quickly, but it's still much more constant than sales, and outside of these odd occurences it's pretty reliable really.

 

A points total would be more appropriate, as the figure would be constant every week across 2005 and 2009 etc, but even that would be far from perfect as songs nowadays have longer chart runs. And then you'd have the problem of a low-selling McFly #1 from 2007 getting the same points as Bleeding Love in its first week at #1, even though the latter was far bigger.

 

I'm waffling now, anywho. To conclude, I would say peak positions, but really both have their flaws. :drama:

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by superbossanova

Why pick when you can have both? ^_^

 

 

I'm just being pedantic :lol: In all honesty, i'd rather have sales. It's more meaningful. It shows that more people appreciate your music and that's where you get a clear indication on what song is more successful and how many fans you have.

 

Chart positions can be extremely misleading (whereas sales can only be misleading if you're JLS :lol:)

 

Take Chasing Cars and Walk This Way (GA vs Sugas version). I'd rather have the success of Chasing Cars.

sales are important, however if i was an artist and i said i had 3 #1s it would mean more then having a few top 20 hits with good sales..

Sales.

 

It simply a case of would you rather, have a #1 single that sells 150k or a #9 single that sells 270k. That first one will look better on paper and too the public but the second one will make more money which is realistically what a mainstream label will want.

3 #1 Singles that sell ok because you be seen as an established artist in the media.

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by Tacticz

If I was an artist, obviously a #1 would be amazing but personally I'd sleep a lot better at night knowing I've sold 500,000 copies of a #5 single and made myself possibly twice as much dosh as a #1 could've earned me, rather than a #1 which sells next to nothing.

I suppose:

 

The artist = more likely position

The record label = sales

 

Sales are more likely to keep you on a label, in a way.

Positions.

I would consider the sales more important but the prestige of having 3 number 1's is great aswell, jedward are a good example of this debate about sales versus positions, i wonder if under pressure had reached number 1 and had the same sales would they still have been dropped, when i read some reports that said under pressure only reached number 2 i was like number 2 is a brilliant position, but in their case the number 1 seemed far more important to their record comapny rather than sales. And im not a jedward fan im only using them as an example.

The 3 #1s