The answer would be the same reason you don't just go by number of hits, or concert sales, or awards. None of these, by themselves, are good indicators. Fans of artists buy albums, but they are far from representative of the entire population. I use the following example.
Say someone had 100 million in album sales, a great figure. One hundred million people have bought their albums in their career. But to bring us down to earth, there are 300 million people in the U.S. alone and over seven billion in the world. The artist has pleased 100 million people in their career, but what about the other seven billion? They haven't convinced them to buy their music, so their album sales reflect just .014% of the population. By anyone's measure, that is just too small of a sample. Put another way, 100 million have bought their albums, but over 7 billion have not.
So no, album sales in and of themselves are good indicators, but must be taken into consideration along with a host of other factors to determine who are the top artists.
Say someone had 100 million in album sales, a great figure. One hundred million people have bought their albums in their career. But to bring us down to earth, there are 300 million people in the U.S. alone and over seven billion in the world. The artist has pleased 100 million people in their career, but what about the other seven billion? They haven't convinced them to buy their music, so their album sales reflect just .014% of the population. By anyone's measure, that is just too small of a sample. Put another way, 100 million have bought their albums, but over 7 billion have not.
So no, album sales in and of themselves are good indicators, but must be taken into consideration along with a host of other factors to determine who are the top artists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.