Hello, it's ADELE.

Legends are people who untouchable, who have done something unimaginable. And this is what Adele is doing as we speak.

lol wow.
She's a good singer who has made some good music and sold a lot of it. Let's not lose our minds.

lol wow.

She's a good singer who has made some good music and sold a lot of it. Let's not lose our minds.

Her sales are untouchable and literally out of this world.

I think you will have much better perspectives looking at all those 40k number ones and now BOM 4m.

I'm not going to look at those numbers because I'm not weirdly obsessed with proving that 'my music artist' is 'better' than 'yours' by reference to sales and chart figures.

What I can say is that they're certainly not 'literally out of this world'.

And based on what can you assert any of these without any number or evidence or even arguments to back yourself up?

She's literally selling more albums than everyone else is combined. She's doubling the weekly sales everyone combined.

To put it another way, if everyone else's sales are combined to go against her (ie only two albums are purchased this week), she'd still be No 1.

And you dismiss this as merely 'selling a lot'. This just shows how utterly ignorant you are.

'Selling a lot' seems like a pretty apt description to me.

Calm yourself down.

When Meghan Trainor's 200k is considered 'a lot', One Direction, Drake, and Justin BIeber's 400k/500k are 'massive', Taylor Swift's 1.2m is 'gigantic', to say 3m is 'a lot' is an understatement.

But I suppose not everyone has a good vocabulary bank.

But the repetitive bubblegum pop tunes also were invented by them and contributed to a major part of their influence. You cannot pretend that that didn't exist.

This is without mentioning the fact that without the initial hits The Beatles's better music will never have seen the light of the day. They became legends because of both. And even for the latter, they're releasing popularised versions of music. They're not Pink Floyd.

It doesn't matter that the Beatles made repetitive bubblegum pop, those songs aren't majorly influential because there isn't much to be gained from listening to them other that their catchy and easily enjoyable, great bands who came after them and were influenced by them were influenced by their later work and that's what matters, that they made those songs that pushed the boundaries, and introduced them to a massive audience which at the time, Pink Floyd were unable to do.

I never argued that Adele's music are musical masterpieces or whatever so your argument really is as strawman's as it gets. I literally said she sells emotions and will at most and also most likely be remembered as someone like Céline Dion.

Basically here, our opinions differ on what makes an artist 'legendary'. But I guess there really isn't any point in debating what makes an artist legendary, in the end there's no point as long as they make music that people enjoy.

This is without pointing out the mere fact that 25 is her third album. Revolver was The Beatles's eighteenth album. They had a total of 24 albums. By the time Madonna released her third album (True Blue), she also had not been recognised as a musician yet (it started with the subsequent album, Like a Prayer).


I don't see your point here... so what! The Beatles wrote more songs than Adele.

I've never claimed that sales equal quality and that is a fact. You need to stop putting words into my mouth.

On Adele's sales, what I said was that this is the biggest musical peak since The Beatles. I went on to even specify that I wasn't talking about overall careers or the acts themselves but the peak itself. This is a repeat of the Beatlemania and the Beatlemania had absolutely nothing to do with quality music.


Arguably it was more significant with The Beatles because it was the first time something like that had happened, with the exception of Elvis Presley to an extent but The Beatles were the first to write their own songs which is obviously very significant. Thousands of kids inspired to start their own bands and write their own songs...

If it's this easy, why didn't everyone and their mother sell this great? I'm not saying 21 and 25 are musical masterpieces - but you're just utterly deluded if you try to downplay the impact she has had on masses of people.

This is unprecedented. She's touching fans of all genres. She's touching people of all ages. She's touching every single demography. So far in history only The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Elvis Presley perhaps have done that.

I'm not trying to downplay here impact on masses of people, I'm just saying there's a pretty simple formula for being appealing to masses of people, hence the success of One Direction, Justin Bieber etc. I'm not saying she's not talented, she writes her own songs and there not bad songs per say, but most of it is down to luck and my argument was basically that musically and influentially she can't compare to a band like the Beatles.

She may or may not be remembered as a future. She may or may not be considered a legend in the future. But moments like this will not go away easily. Moments like this don't come by easily.

Whatever she did, she did something remarkable - and this is something you need to understand and cannot possibly downplay.

Indeed because you would just be wrong. If people who care about music don't listen to Adele, she would not have been able to move this amount of albums. There's isn't a group of people who are collectively resisting Adele, except for the Japanese.

Gotta love the Japanese...

To be a legend, you don't have to have broken grounds musically.

If such an unremarkable English working class woman who sings ordinary songs can sell millions and millions of albums, that in itself would make her a legend. Legends are people who can do things other people cannot do. Legends are people who untouchable, who have done something unimaginable. And this is what Adele is doing as we speak.

As I said, it's down to luck and a simple pop music formula, she did something that other people haven't done, not that other people couldn't have done.

Her sales impact may or may not be remembered in the future (but this is going into history books regardless, with very little chance of being surpassed in the future), but to say she will be forgotten in 10 years is just plain silly. As long as she continues to release album every 2-4 years, she'll certainly be remembered. Even Ciara is still remembered ffs.

I said she probably would be remembered as a pop culture phenomenon.

Correction: He wrote and sung one brilliant pop song ('Your Song' and released one ('Candle In The Wind 1997' owing mostly to Diana, Princess of Wales. But see? Ever if he's got no brilliant pop songs whatsoever, he'd still have been remembered because he's got the freaking biggest-selling single of all-time, even though that had hardly anything to do with music and hardly anyone really liked the song (it flopped in its original form).

I like Tiny Dancer and Rocket Man...

EDIT: The stuff I wrote is within the quote, because I suck with computers...

Sir Elton's only song that's remembered is 'Your Song', even though CITW 1997 is constantly mentioned for obvious reasons.

The Beatles's bubblegum pop songs were influential. They were the first to create that poppy formula= in that length, and that has led to the creation of many subsequent pop songs even till today.

I didn't say her INFLUENCE is bigger than The Beatles. I said time and time again I didn't compare overall careers. I talked about the PEAK of an event's impact. And to say that this is the biggest since the Beatlemania is not even comparing it to The Beatles - if it's the biggest 'since' something, it means this thing is smaller. If you want to argue, bring up MJ, bring up Madonna; not The Beatles or anyone before them.

You're still seeing this so simplistically. Luck obviously pays a factor, as it is the case with The Beatles and everyone else. But no formula could've led to this global slayage. She's selling more albums than all other albums available in the US combined. She's selling more albums than the next 600 albums in the UK combined.

As I've said, if there's actually is a formula to do this, a lot more people would be selling much, much better.

The fact that you're comparing her sales to that of Justin Bieber's and One Direction's just showed how terribly misguided you are of the situation. 1D sold a lot? Oh well, 25 is outselling their last three albums' overall sales plus all their singles in a week. Bieber sold a lot? Oh well, 21 doubled his career total. In this decade, 21 has the sales four times of the runner-up (1989).

You're definitely right to say that 1D and Bieber became successful due to a formula. But a formula doesn't give you an album that literally scanned diamond in multiple countries.

She's doing this across genres, across ages, across social classes, across languages, across cultures, across religions, across national borders. She's selling even in war-torn countries, even in locked down Belgium, even in paranoid France.

BTW, her 'disappointing' Japanese sales still put her No 1 as international artists and No 4 overall (behind 2 vastly popular local acts), in a country that hardly speaks English, is xenophobic, and she has never even been to.

Well, I could argue all of your points again and then you could argue all my points again but, in the end, it''s music, and all that really matters is whether you enjoyed the album and if you and millions of other people enjoyed the album then that's great.

Well you were just clearly wrong to say she sells well only due to a formula, especially when you cited 1D and Bieber, whose sales could in no way be compared to Adele's, as examples...

But OK.

It's not as much to do with sales, it's about how the public lap up generic formulaic music that's been done a million times before, see your own chart of era adjusted album sales, the only one that isn't generic and unoriginal is the Marshall Mather's LP.