Found this interactive thing of every top-selling album ever.
Spoilers: Adele and a /b/ lurker are this decade's GOAT.
How does /mu/ feel about this?
http://datavizz.com/2016/05/22/billboard-200-1945-2016/
>>65464103
Also how to print the chart?
>>65464154
Also who is the 1975 and why do they have an album called this??
>How does /mu/ feel about this?
They are good musicians so of course they're popular. They deserve this. Not that anyone here agrees.
>>65464241
I disagree with this
>>65464103
>Taylor Swift is a /b/tard
Had this meme ever been confirmed?
Adele has some very nice songs. All I Ask, Hometown Glory, When We Were Young, and Million Years Ago are some of my favorites.
>>65464345
Yes
What the fuck is South Pacific and why did everyone in the 40s cream their jorts over it??
>>65464376
????
Interesting to see how one or two artists could really take over the scene back then
Everything made sense until Purple Rain came out and then the charts get fucking ridiculous and unpredictable until the mid-90s, when it settled down, and now the charts don't mean shit
>>65464103
Basically you see the end of consolidated media. When there are only a few radio stations/music publications that set trends and the Internet allows tons of different artists to build audiences, you see more variety but also less of a monoculture. You get some exceptions like 1989 but that's why now you can see everyone from Vampire Weekend to Mac Miller to 5 Seconds of Summer capable of getting a number one record. They all have sizable but not huge audiences that will support them the first week an album is out.
>>65464580
Why do the charts not "mean shit" anymore? What is a good indicator then of what people are listening to? Serious q.
>>65464580
>>65464646
Basically, you're saying it takes less effort to get to #1 because you need fewer sales to get to #1 nowadays.
Wonder if there's any sales stats on these albums.
>>65464677
I think that's right. The charts reward artists with medium-sized but dedicated fanbases. I think that's changing now that streams are being counted, though. You see albums like Views dominating the charts for long runs. It's overdue and more representative of how people listen.
>>65464670
This is what I meant
>>65464677
Up until the 80s, you can see the #1s kind of tell a story, you can see consistently that the next set of albums seem kind of like an evolution of the previous set of albums. Even if that didn't tell the whole story of what was popular at the time, it told part of the story. Led Zeppelin and The Beatles for example pay obvious tribute to the types of artists who were at the top before them. Then you get a bunch of disrupters who aren't playing along and hit the top of the charts anyways. Eventually, by now, it's so erratic you can't even tell where anything came from. If you only listen to the top charted albums you'd be completely lost, it doesn't tell a story anymore.
>>65464733
>You see albums like Views dominating the charts for long runs
I think it's only been up there three weeks so far
Shaggy was killer in 2001, and is already a literally who except for it wasn't me and angel
goes to show the longevity of 90s+ music
>>65465168
5 weeks now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_200_number-one_albums_of_2016
