Overstaged

Having said that, we should also remember that BuzzJack is heavily inclined towars female pure-pop. Just look at the artist´s forum section. Going by predictions here, Sugababes comeback would have been massive. Yet they won´t even have a Top 5 album, in a week of low sales. Realistically, female pop singers are not as big in the whole world as they seem to be in BuzzJack. The general buyng public is much more diverse then BuzzJack´s public.

Someone who actually makes sense. I can´t believe people even consider the idea of Britney´s album outselling take that, or even coming close by "a few copies"... PEOPLE, WAKE UP! Britney´s last album didn´t even sell 200,000 copies in UK to date. Take That´s album sold more then that in its first week alone, and sold almost 450k in the Christmas week alone, a few weeks later then its release. There´s no realistic competition between them. Even if Womanizer became a MONSTER hit, she´s mainly a singles act. TOXIC was a pop classic, and still it couldn´t push In The Zone into the Top 10 (that album peaked at a mere #14 in UK). Blackout was top 3 with 30-40k-ish sales in its opening week, thanks to a week with very small competition and low sales. Released under the rush of Christmas market, it would have certainly missed the Top 10.

See russt68??? Another person for you to get hugely histeric about... That´s something I never actually said. The way this topic started, people were talking as if all gay footballers came out of closet it would be a huge scandal and people would end up noticing that the football world is hugely gay. I just sugested that, even if all gay footballers came out of closet, it wouldn´t make much of an impact, cause *probably* they don´t represent a big percentual of the total footballers out there.

Most people are comfortable enough with who they are that they don´t take an offense from anything. Most people I know would feel offended if I said they don´t like football... In the worse hypothesis, they´d just correct me. I don´t give a flyng toss about you´re sexuality either... Just because I said gay people are less likely to be interested in football then straigh males are, you took that as a hard offense. Your problem is not sexuality, is self esteem and paranoia. And you definitely need help...

Again, you are assuming things you never said, then you criticize the affirmations that yourself has built as if they were mine. Completely idiot. I would not feel comfortable naked in a bathroom along with a female person I find atractive. That doesn´t mean I´m gonna rape her or I´d feel insuportably atracted by any human being from the opposite sex. Most people are like this. That´s why we have separate bathrooms for men and women. That´s ok. I would also be put off living with someone with such low self esteem that feels offended by anything. It must be insuportable. I prefer people who are a bit more confident, instead of people who need others to affirmate them all the time...

1) "Paedophilia is more normal then homossexuality" is something I never said. You might be a dumb politically correct idiot, but at least be honest and check your facts. 2) "Most gay people don´t like football" is hardly an offense... Even if that affirmative was completely wrong (which I doubt), then it would be just a mistake, but hardly an offense. That´s like sayng "most british housewives between 25 and 40 years old like Dido", and that is something that appears on magazines all the time. To notice a tendency in a sector of society is hardly an offense, even if it is mistaken. Unless you´re a PARANOID.

Bull$h!t... doesn´t deserve answear. So I need to advise you. SOMEONE COMMITTED A CRIME IN THESES BOARDS!!!! In the following topic, a member of buzzjack has said most Britney fans are gay. Take a look: http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?s...81245&st=40 You can spread a bit of your histeric paranoia there too!!!!!!!! Don´t miss this oportunity to act completely irrational and childish again. What do you know about me? As much as you know from life and culture in general: c**p. You know nothing about me, so stop with the personal insults. You´re just acting childish, because you HAVE to voice your gay-pride speech in every damn thread, even when there´s no remotely signs of you feared "homophobia"... Grow up. Not everyone. You are. I just said that football is not as atractive to gay people as it is for straight males. You took that as a huge offense. Just a big proof that you´re an histeric paranoid who sees homophobia in everything. How do you say gay people tend to be more loyal to their idols??? going by your idiotic point of view, anything concerning gay "tendency" which is not directly related to sexuality should be taken as huge offense. Bla bla bla... Low self esteem alarm. You make a victim of yourself ALL THE BLOODY TIME!!!!! You victimize yourself for being gay any bloody time, anything is seen as a big offense, and anything is a oportunity for a huge speech concerning how Church is evil (so out of topic here) and how it is suffering to be gay in this evil world where everyone seem to hate you. Because you have no self esteem, you are completely paranoid and sees everything as a huge offense. A simple comment like: I don´t think gay males are as interested in football as straight males do. THAT you take as a huge offense. I feel so sorry for you...

Globally, Britney will do a lot better. But in the UK, I reckon Take That will sell in one week more then Britney´s album will do in its entire run.

If I could, I would punch everyone who is working at Sony/BMG on this release... they all deserve to be fired. Any amateur would have a better strategy then them. What a huge loss of money... To turn a potential million selling comeback into this load of $h!t. I hope the label goes bankrupt and they all get fired, cause it´s what they deserve for their stupidity.

Because she is UNIVERSALLY known as a gay icon, and everyone knows that, except morons who want to keep in the politically-correct idiotic speech, that believes it´s offensive that some things are more atractive to gay people the to straight people, and vice-versa. In fact, there was a serious study about Madonna and her image in popular culture, and they researched several of her fan clubs in my country (Brazil), and the average profile of a Madonna fan is male, age between 20-30, student, and GAY. Of course, if you know the meaning of "average" and "tendency" I wouldn´t need to explain to you that this doesn´t mean that she can´t actually have straight male fans. I could mention several other things that seem to be pretty huge among gay people, but cause close to no atraction to straight males. Why do you think marketing uses the expression "gay public...". If there weren´t such things that atract more gay people then straights, then there would be no "gay public" in first place. Of course it means. Your statement just makes no sense. If most Madonna male fans were straight, then marketing her as a gay diva would have negative effect trough her fanbase. It would make a few straight people ashamed of buyng her records or going to her concerts. It would make no sense to market her as a "gay icon" if most of her fans were straight. You don´t need to be a master in marketing to aknowledge this very plain fact... Another contradiction... If the preferences of the "gay public" were exactly the same as of the "straight-male-public", then there´d be no reason why gay people would be more likely to visit fan forums. You don´t find offensive the idea (even if it´s just hypothetical) that gay people might use fan forums more then straight people, yet you find it deeply homophobic if someone states that gay people are less likely to enjoy football and sports then straight people. Where´s the reason in that??? There´s not... you just randomly whining about homphobia, a word whose meaning you seem not to even understand. Because you are a paranoid concerning to homphobia. This problem usually happens with people with low self-esteem. They see everything as deeply offensive to themselves. A simple comment or joke that would be taken with a bit of humour by anyone else can be considered a huge ofense when someone is an irrational PARANOID. If I say a singer like Cliff Richard atracts more old people then teenagers, it´s okay... If I say MTV targets a teenage public, more then an adult public, it´s okay... If I say a certain TV show is more interesting to a female public it´s okay... If I dare to say that football is probably more atractive to a male-straight public then it is to a female public or to a gay-male public, the homophobia paranoia suddenly rings a bell and all the winning starts. Why is it that nobody gets offended if I say, the same way, football is less atractive to females then it is to males? That´s called hypocrisy. Well, I live in a country where football is one of the most important things in popular culture, so much that it´s actually a symbol of this country. Yet, I have no problems to say that, concerning people who surround me, the ones who are more interested in football are by FAR straight males... I´d say they represent pretty much like 90% of the public interested in this sport. It´s not a matter of gay people being afraid of going to stadiums because homophobia. It´s a fact that women (wether they´re straight or not) are much less likely to be interested in football then males, yet they don´t have reasons to be afraid of assuming they like football. They simply don´t seem to feel atracted by it at all. I´d say the same thing just happens with the average gay-male public. Is it deeply offensive or homphobic??? Then sue any paper that ever called Madonna a "gay icon"... Sue every magazine who wrote that some singer or band has a huge "gay appeal"... Sue every TV channel that ever dared to make a show targeted to the "gay public"... Be a politically correct moron that gets offended by any little thing...

Yes, that´s something anyone can EASILY noticed... Just P-C- iditos would get offended by stuff like this. For a fact, we could enter a Madonna forum and open a poll, to ask of the males there, how many of them are gay, bi and straight. Then if we say Madonna´s music and fashion is more atractive to gay people then it is to straight people, is it homophobic or offensive? NO. For instance, I´m not sayng that Madonna doesn´t have straight fans, or either there aren´t gay people who detest Madonna. It´s just a tendency. This is something that is used in marketing ALL THE TIME... To classify the public´s into their characteristics, to better deal with it. In USA and UK you have many TV shows that are directly aimed at a gay public, even tough they´re not directly related to sex. Theorically, stuff that is aired there could be interesting to anyone, regardless of their sexual preferences cause it´s not related to sex, but for some reason, people who deal with marketing KNOW when something will be more atractive to a gay public, in music, movies, fashion, etc. Why is it such a big crime to say that, from a marketing perspective, football and sports in general isn´t much of a gay thing? :(

No, I´m not... There are things in our culture that are more atractive to different types of publics. That´s the point when you say this artist or that movie has a big "gay audience"... Do people think that´s offensive? If we go by the same idea of russt, then just to say some artists, a TV show, a movie, has a big "gay audience" should be a big offense, since all cultural options should atract gays, straights, male/female exactly in the same proportion... It seems that he hasn´t noticed people ARE different, and noticing the differences is hardly an offense.

Calm down with the scandal. I neverd said ALL gay people dislike football. What I said is just a normal fact that everyone notices, and it´s hardly offensive unless your a histeryc cry-out-loud who sees homophobia in everything. Most (***MOST***) gay people are not interested in football, and even when they watch it they are more interested in the players looks then the game itself. That´s hardly an offense, since I myself am not interested in football in the least and that doesn´t mean I´m gay. There are exceptions to the rule. Cool, you mentioned some examples. What difference that makes??? I certainly can mention the name of a few Madonna fans who are straight males. That hardly changes the reality: that most of her male fans ARE gay! The tipical politically correct censorship. It makes me laugh that a person who writes this pretends to defend "free" thought. Am I being hanged if I say the majority of males who are stylists are homossexual too? Am I being hanged if I say artists like Madonna or Cher have much more hability to atract gay fans then straight male fans? Hell, stop being an histeric politically-correct cliche machine, and look this is not offensive in the least... For a fact, you are being a huge HYPOCRITE (hardly a surprise...), since I remember in an old topic you said one of your friends would love to have a gay son, and most people around you find gay people pretty cool, because of their sense of fashion and stuff. Yeah, like it was a huge sin to say fashion is more atractive to gay males then to straight males... :unsure: Well, I wouldn´t feel comfortable being naked close to someone who can potentially feel atracted, just like I wouldn´t feel comfortable being naked in the same room with a female friend who I can possibly feel atracted. That´s why bathrooms are separated for each gender. :unsure: I never said gay men (let alone "ALL" gay men - you always seem to put the words "all" and "every" in places I haven´t written them) would be an embarrasment in changing rooms. I just think it´s embarrasing to put in the same room, naked, people who can potentially feel atracted by each other. Homophobic, homophobic, bla bla bla... I´m so tired of these cliches. Everything is homophobic to you. Seems like you´re a total paranoid...

I think you´re quite right with your predictions, tough I can´t see Christina ahead of Dido. At least, Dido is Top 20 on the airplay chart, Christina´s not even Top 40, and in terms of fanbase I think Dido has a much bigger UK fanbase then Christina (surely the 3 million who bought each of her first 2 albums are still alive?). Then, there´s also a hope that she WILL have some promotion in the end. She finished shooting her video in September... the reason why the video has still not debuted is a mistery.

I´d hardly call Metallica, AC/DC and Guns N Roses "any" rock bands tough... It´s hardly a surprise to see them at #1 since their legends. Plus, let´s be honest, rock always had more credibility then the average pop acts. A rock band can spend 10 years without a new album and still be remember. A pure-pop act who left that long to come back would become anonymous.

You must be joking. Kid Rock already scored several hits in his career, and I think he´s famous since the early 90´s...

But they have amazing album sales - and that´s what make them legendary. Without the big album sales, they could score a bazillion number 1 hits and still wouldn´t have musical recognizement. Think about Bananarama, Jason Donovan, Vengaboys, and other acts that during some time scored HIT after HIT in the singles chart - where are they now and what importance they had in music? Yet we still remember people like Depeche Mode - who never had a #1 single. I´d say musical importance is based more in albums then singles. If an act is really credible, it will inspire people to get the whole material - the album - and not just 1 or 2 tracks. Specially these days, when a "single" is 99p mp3 track you don´t even need to get out of your house to order. I know for a fact that I purchase singles from many artists I don´t consider important - just for some fun. But I only buy albums from acts that I really like. That´s why some pop acts can achieve several hitsingles, but their album sales never get out of mediocrity: they have many ocasional buyers who enjoy the track, but not so many people who are deeply interested in their music.

Fans are not always "collectors". Most of them would be satisfied if they already have the track on the album. Acts like GA are "trendy", they have a group of a few thousand die-hard fans who would buy any of their singles, while more credible acts like Oasis have a much bigger fanbase, but most of this fans not willing to spend their money in useless material. I can´t believe when I hear some people download a track in the week it´s released, even if they already have like 3 copies of the album (physical), downloaded the album, etc. They obviously do that just do "help" their favourite artists, which is beyond stupid: that equals giving money to someone who is probably much richer then you. I´d rather donate to the poor. I wouldn´t buy something just to collect it or to help its chart performance, I´d only buy if I think it´s a useful product for me. And I think most rock fans think like me, that´s why they won´t go buyng the 3rd or 4th single off an album they already have. But what really matters to industry is the album sales. A hugely sucessful single will sell what??? 200 or 300k copies? Divide that by 6 or 7, and you have the equivalent in album sales: ~40-50k. Yeah, in terms of making money, a hugely sucessful single equals to a floppy album. There no comparison between an act that scores several Top 10 hits, but with albums selling between 200-400k, to an act that have just ok-ish single sales but can easily shift a million albums.

Their new album just opened with 200,000 copies and it´s not Christmas time. A GA or Sugababes album would be lucky to sell 200,000 overall if it was released outside of the Christmas period.

It´s a myth that trendy pop acts like GA have huge fanbases. They don´t. They can only sell well when they have a big hit on the mainstream media. And sometimes, not even with that. If they had such a huge fanbase, then they wouldn´t have missed Top 10 with one of their albums. Plus, everyone says the same about Sugababes, but their new album is set to open with a $h!tty 25,000 sales in its first week. I guess they were known as an act of "huge" fanbase to. TBH, I think only real credible artists have fanbases that would stick to them no matter what. Talk about AC/DC coming back since no-one-knows-when, and still strong enough for a #1 album.

And who cares??? This is a poll and people have the right to be wrong with their opinions sometimes. Plus, you have to consider when the poll was originally posted, this release was going to clash with other hyped hits. They changed the release date to avoid the clash, tough. In the end it´s all about the album sales... that´s what keeps an artists career alive. Let´s see how they perform...

People tend to overrate female pure-pop acts in these boards... Don´t get impressed by these predictions. Sugababes were also heavily predicted to a #1 single, yet they only managed a #3 and a flopping album (acording to the midweeks). People are voting to the acts that they want to suceed actually...

Still no video... She´s f***ing this release up.

But are they really that many? I doubt football is something that atracts too many gay people, just like fashion doesn´t attract too many straight males. People like to fantasize about loads of football players being in the closet, but so far, all the gay people I know aren´t interested in football in the least. Plus, it should be very embarrasing in the vestiary.

But has he fired anyone for that??? That´s just a comment he made 6 years ago, and it sounds like an informal conversation, rather then an official statement of himself. I´m pretty sure he wouldn´t fire his best players if they were gay, or keep a crappy player just cause he´s straight.