The Beatles Abbey Road at #3 on Billboard album charts!!!

64,000 is not impressive. The fact is that album sales are at a 30 year low. In the '90s albums were certified multi-platinum at release.

 

no. it beat out Sgt. Pepper remix by 100 days

 

lets see where your Pop stars of today are 50 yrs from now.

 

Worldwide I would imagine more people know who the "The Beatles" are than any of the other acts you name. In fact many of those people wouldn't have clue who those other acts are.

 

Very easy if your a fanboy to sit back 50 years later, full of that arrogant self-confidence.
I don’t care if the artists of now is relevant in 50 years time. That’s not the point. The point is that it’s only because of the fanbase buying physical products, that The Beatles gets to no. 1. 8000 units is low. Compared to what the acts of now are selling, it’s nothing. And that’s how it should be. The Beatles are a nostalgia act.

 

Wrong. It’s the other way around.
On this forum, nearly no one knows the acts of today, but sits in their own little community talking of The Beatles as the worlds biggest act still.

Ask the majority of the youth worldwide if they know who The Beatles are. There will be less and less who knows or even care.

 

Yeah, if you say so, youngsters, pffft ..

 

Which says it all about this community.
Folks here are exactly speaking in terms of their own parents when The Beatles came on the scene...

 

I did hear about The Beatles from my parents, my aunts and uncles too. I was about three or four years old when I first heard about the fabs. I remember being excited that they were bringing a record out so I would finally get to hear what they had all been talking about, the record "Love Me Do".

 

need some cheese to go with that whine?

 

The Beatles didn't get to number 1 with 8,000 sales. Are you even trying anymore at this point?

 

Then what? 64.000 sold? Still low...

 

Considering the top album of 2019 according to Forbes sold 312,000 physical units ( BTS - Map of the Soul: Persona) , I would say 64,000 units on release week for a 50 year old album that most people already own is a pretty strong showing. Physical units are such a terrible way to measure album sales now anyway. Most people don't buy physical copies. Physical copies are mostly reserved for hobbyists and older generations.

 

For those who don’t know/don’t understand how the charts work these days, perhaps this graphic will help. Last week’s chart from hitsdailydouble (TEA = track equivalent albums; SEA = streaming equivalent albums):

 

The Beatles did not reach number 1. It was number 3....with a 50 year old album. You're comparing that with current acts who release new music. And if these other acts are selling so much then how did the Beatles make it to number 3? Fact is, you have a few top acts who sell a lot and the rest, not so much. That's how it is these days.

 

Also, as mentioned in this linked article, streams are counted differently for Billboard's charts if they come from an ad-free subscription site or if the streaming site is supported by ads---which again is an arbitrary and silly idea. And how they came up with the arbitrary numbers is anybody's guess.

Billboard Finalizes Changes to How Streams Are Weighted for Billboard Hot 100 & Billboard 200

 

It’s 8 times your claim.

 

I really doubt it’s arbitrary. The different industry interests came up with the method of tallying after, I would bet, a lot of discussion. It may leave our heads spinning but it isn’t just plucked out of the air (or elsewhere).

 

Guys, it was DaBaby that sold the 8,000.

His album KIRK is #1 with 145,000 album equivalent units (137,000 units coming from streams/track downloads).

Let’s kind of end that confusion.

 

Oh, yes, there is a reason behind how they picked their numbers. Billboard certainly had some meetings and discussions to figure this all out. But it still is an arbitrary process. As the article says:

The Billboard 200 will now include two tiers of on-demand audio streams. TIER 1: paid subscription audio streams (equating 1,250 streams to 1 album unit) and TIER 2: ad-supported audio streams (equating 3,750 streams to 1 album unit).

So why does an ad-free site need 3 times (3X, that is 1250 x 3 = 3750) as many streams as a non-ad streaming site? Why isn't it 2X or 5X or 22X? Completely made-up numbers (plus those numbers of 1250 and 3750 have also changed over time, and they likely will change in the future too).

It is as if an album (say, Abbey Road) selling at one store for $6.99 in 1969 would be worth 1-and-a-half sales compared to the same album selling more cheaply at another store for $4.99.

But that's the way it is.

 

8000 units?
Yikes. I got 8000 units in the room next to me!

 

I hear ya but... Beyonce is huge.

 

#1 in Spain! There's still hope over here

 

One additional thing to keep in mind is that Billboard shows Abbey Road as going from #71 the week before its new release and shooting up to #3 (and also shows the album as being in its 329th week on the chart. So obviously that means they aren't distinguishing between sales/downloads/streams of the original version/mix of the album and sales/downloads/streams of the just released new version. Its ALL sales/downloads/streams of every version of the album currently in print (or on streaming platforms) combined.

 

Very true.

Moreover, because the person in charge of tallying the sales numbers in near-sighted and lost his eyeglasses, he is also counting sales of: