[unique]

Originally Posted by maninthequeue

A So what you are saying is the Official Chart Company whom compile the UK charts from sales of records made are crap.

B Therefore what you are saying is this week's singles & albums charts which have Maroon 5 & Chris Brown respectively at #1 at the biggest selling sellers of the last 7 days are inaccurate.

C And yet you say Sales are a direct reflection of impact and influence, whilst trashing the organisation that compiles the UK charts.

That is a pretty damn serious allegation to make!!!

i've stuck letters before each of your statements

the answer to A is NO, but as i've pointed out before, they only measure, or at least in the past have only measured accurately some of the sales

the answer to B is NO, bearing in mind the inacuracies of above. this is what i've explained a number of times already. the charts are only reflective of sales at a fixed time at a fixed period, measuring sales of one record against another. in the current age of POS scanning the data is likely to be more accurate than in the past, but it still only shows you an order of sales

C - sales are a direct representation of the impact of music, but i'm not trashing the organisation. they can only report on the data they receive

but the key point which you still don't seem to understand is that records can sell millions of copies and not reach number 1

and whilst you haven't mentioned it, your earlier posts seem to overlook the fact that tracks can sell millions more on albums than on singles. thus whilst strawberry fields may have only sold half a million copies as a single (i'm not sure the exact figures, this is just a rough idea to make a point), it sold about 15 million copies on albums

for some artists, such as led zep and floyd, they both sold literally hundreds of millions of records and make little to no impact on the singles charts as they released little to no singles. this is a perfect example of the flaws in your chart based ideas

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

oh, you are changing the goal posts now... now you are saying that sales are a reflection of impact and influence, but its still wrong because many tracks cited as ground breaking, inspirational and influencial simple didnt sell much because they were not commercially appealing.

no, that is just your opinion that those tracks were influential, groundbreaking, etc, or at least MORE influential, etc

i stand by what i say. you've probably noticed by now that i stick by what i say. i don't post something if i'm not sure, or i'll make it clear if i'm not sure about something

yes, but that proves nothing because many influencial artists didnt sell much again because many influencial tracks are not commercially appealling.

again that is your opinion with no facts to back it up

you dont have to explain anything, i understood your point the first time you posted it...and i disagree with it for reasons already stated, several times, so stop trying to say im wrong...im not.

yes you are wrong, which is why you have no proof otherwise

if you do understand something however, why do you need to keep posting the same question over and over again when it's already been answered?

m8, thats bs.... trying to suggest that westlife might be ifluencial in the future? c'mon! and how come you think theyll be regarded as such after i die?... why not you? you supposed to have lived through the punk era so you must be around my age! nah...

and i dont forget about artists that came before my time, im fully aware of the evolution of popular music prior to my birth.

i have no idea what influence any artist will have from next year onwards, never mind after i die

but i can see from sales that westlife had a huge impact based on sales. it's interesting how you didn't mention boyzone, as westlife were put together to capatilise on the market that boyzone was popular in, they were also influential to that degree. and both of them were influential in the subsequent boy bands and the takeover of saturday night prime time television with shows seeking more artists of that ilk

sad as it may be, but not everyone is hip and trendy and into cool music. some are quite happy to listen to manufactured pop music, in the same way as some people are happy to watch movies full of car chases, explosions and computer graphic effects but have no interest in watching most of the movies that win academy awards. different people are influenced by different things, such as disco and punk

lol.. you suggested that lydon liked the beegees as support for your views on disco.... but lydon chose an early beegees track, not a disco one.

http://www.johnlydon.com/LOADED98.HTM

no

[FONT=tahoma][color=#80ffff]I don't 'ave any punk records. Pistols yes, but not punk. I do see a difference... I love a good dance ditty. God, I love disco. I see no problem admiring the Bee Gees and being in The Sex Pistols. But that was apparently a no-no to NME or Melody Maker at the time because they just couldn't accept that you could have it all. You were supposed to have these little categories and ignore everything else... Reggae became fashionable, therefore that was allowed to be reported on. But disco was never fashionable for the likes of those so-called music papers at the time. And it should have been. It's all music, it's all entertainment for your benefit. If you turn your ears off to something just because it's a genre that doesn't fit into your lifestyle, then you don't have a lifestyle at all. You're a slave to a system."

[/COLOR][/FONT]

"[FONT=tahoma][color=#80ffff]God, I love disco. I see no problem admiring the Bee Gees and being in The Sex Pistols."

[color=#80ffff]are you in any doubt that lydon likes disco. that's a different article from his own website from the article i posted earlier from his own website[/COLOR]
[/COLOR][/FONT]

i think its been soundly proven that punk has had a much more profound effect on british youth culture and music then disc has. for all the reasons we have highlighted, reasons that you cannot refute, so that arguments dead. punk won.

you might think that, but it's not. you need proof to prove something. i've provided proof that disco had a considerably bigger impact in the UK and the world than punk has

both styles of music were influential in different ways, but punk didn't win. with the exception of a few people keeping the candle burning, it burned out in the 70s like disco did in the 80s

answer me this.... is 'candle in the wind 97' britains most influencial track ever?

yes or no...

because by your logic, our biggest selling track must be also our most influencial.

now nobody on earth will say 'yes', but if you say 'no' then you defeat your own argument.

another question i clarified before and you ask yet again

if you want to determine if an artist is influential based on sales then you have to compare the artists body of work, rather than separating it into parts

as to that record being influential, obviously it was for it to have such a huge impact on the record buying public. i didn't buy it, but i bought the album the original version version was on, which was a big selling and influential album, not to mention a great one

but if you want to go by what i've pointed out several times before, of sales being an indication of influence, the answer is of course "NO" as it's not the biggest selling track in the uk. biggest selling single perhaps, you you again forget about albums

so my logic remains intact

of course big selling tracks often (but not always) have some influence, but the greatest influencial tracks are often not the most commercial.

well that is your opinion, but in what way can you accurately measure and prove that a track has a greater influence if not by sales?

[Adamsk]

Did anyone see John Lydon on Question time it flared at the start and lost it in the end.Alot of people have slated it saying it's not the punk John lydon we use to know and love is anarchy in the uk been shot.It was like watch one of your old heroes selling out when people was look for anarchy on the show and a Bill Grundy,Tom snider like moment and got mild crap for Mr Lydon to promote how good England is at the end of the show.And rants at the finish made no sense and lost the plot so is Johnny,s punk days all gone now

[JohnnyForget]

Originally Posted by Adamsk

Did anyone see John Lydon on Question time it flared at the start and lost it in the end.Alot of people have slated it saying it's not the punk John lydon we use to know and love is anarchy in the uk been shot.It was like watch one of your old heroes selling out when people was look for anarchy on the show and a Bill Grundy,Tom snider like moment and got mild crap for Mr Lydon to promote how good England is at the end of the show.And rants at the finish made no sense and lost the plot so is Johnny,s punk days all gone now

Perhaps, at the age of 56, Mr. Lydon decided it was time to grow up.

[Adamsk]

Originally Posted by JohnnyForget

Perhaps, at the age of 56, Mr. Lydon decided it was time to grow up.

Or maybe he just finale got sick of being punk or basically sold out so maybe Morrissey was the true punk after all.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Adamsk

Or maybe he just finally got sick of being punk or basically sold out so maybe Morrissey was the true punk after all.

People change as they grow older. You can't expect Lydon to still be the same person he was when he was 19.

Right from the time that the Pistols split he tried to distance himself from the band, musically if not necessarily in attitude. PiL's songs were far removed from the three chord thrash of punk and as the music shifted so did Lydon's perspectives.

I think he's always been a contrary and argumentative sod but he's also someone who has deliberately defied pigeonholing. He has said in interviews that people think they know him but they don't really know him at all because he's rarely consistent in anything he says. He's changed his mind about his feelings towards his fellow Pistols many times, for example; the only thing he's ever really been consistent with is his hatred for Malcolm McLaren.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

People change as they grow older. You can't expect Lydon to still be the same person he was when he was 19.

Right from the time that the Pistols split he tried to distance himself from the band, musically if not necessarily in attitude. PiL's songs were far removed from the three chord thrash of punk and as the music shifted so did Lydon's perspectives.

I think he's always been a contrary and argumentative sod but he's also someone who has deliberately defied pigeonholing. He has said in interviews that people think they know him but they don't really know him at all because he's rarely consistent in anything he says. He's changed his mind about his feelings towards his fellow Pistols many times, for example; the only thing he's ever really been consistent with is his hatred for Malcolm McLaren.

agreed.

it would be rather bad if at 56 he behaved the same way he did at 18...god i dont (at 55), but his attitude and way of thinking is in tact.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

no, that is just your opinion that those tracks were influential, groundbreaking, etc, or at least MORE influential, etc

no, its the opinion of the artists who cite them as influencial, not me.

i stand by what i say. you've probably noticed by now that i stick by what i say. i don't post something if i'm not sure, or i'll make it clear if i'm not sure about something

yes, thats not a good trait, and tbh its rather foolish for any person to carry om believing in something thats been proven inaccurate.

again that is your opinion with no facts to back it up

'manintheque' highlighted the facts which proved your notion that sales = influence is inaccurate. but you chose to ignore it as it proved that point wrong.

yes you are wrong, which is why you have no proof otherwise

this is playground childishness. i fully explained my point which you couldnt counter.

if you do understand something however, why do you need to keep posting the same question over and over again when it's already been answered?

because you have NOT answered any of the questions posed.

answer this, yes or no... is 'candle in the wind 97 the most influencial track ever here in the uk?..

yes or no... answer it.

i have no idea what influence any artist will have from next year onwards, never mind after i die

ridiculous.

but i can see from sales that westlife had a huge impact based on sales. it's interesting how you didn't mention boyzone, as westlife were put together to capatilise on the market that boyzone was popular in, they were also influential to that degree. and both of them were influential in the subsequent boy bands and the takeover of saturday night prime time television with shows seeking more artists of that ilk

yeah, cos boybands started with boyzone didnt they?... they didnt create a market, a market aimed at young/middle aged women has existed since day 1 of the charts...its just lately that market has been fllled by boybands instead of solo balladeers. citing reality tv as an impact of westlife is ridiculous.

sad as it may be, but not everyone is hip and trendy and into cool music. some are quite happy to listen to manufactured pop music, in the same way as some people are happy to watch movies full of car chases, explosions and computer graphic effects but have no interest in watching most of the movies that win academy awards. different people are influenced by different things, such as disco and punk

but its the hip and trendy musicians that created the rich diverse music industry we have had over the last 60 years.... not the half hearted 'not really bothered' lot, and its THEY who bought disco, not the trendy hipsters who took punk ethics and created the rich and diverse music scene in the post punk era.

you might think that, but it's not. you need proof to prove something. i've provided proof that disco had a considerably bigger impact in the UK and the world than punk has


both styles of music were influential in different ways, but punk didn't win. with the exception of a few people keeping the candle burning, it burned out in the 70s like disco did in the 80s

lol you are on a wind up...

punk influenced directly two major styles of music that are still around today (indie, goth) with all their sub genres.... disco didnt.

punk influenced art.... disco didnt
punk influenced literature... disco didnt
punk influenced comedy... disco didnt
punk inspired a range of fashions that are still around today... disco didnt.
punk music inspired a whole generation of music fans to go out and create new music... disco didnt.

the links that prove these points have already been posted.

punk was the greatest influence on british youth culture over the last 40 years and some might argue ever...

and punk evolved directly into post punk, so didnt die out in the 70's but lasted and was influencial on the acid house rave scene of the late 80's.

another question i clarified before and you ask yet again

ok, make a monkey out of me, show me where you answered that and ill accept that you did answer and im an idiot of missing it...

if you want to determine if an artist is influential based on sales then you have to compare the artists body of work, rather than separating it into parts

nonsense.... utter nonsense.... why? because no artist is that godlike, even the beatles! any artist might produce a single track that is influencial, more often then not its 1 track that others cite. 'i feel love' for eg... THATS the single track that many cite as the begining of electronic dance music, not donna summer or georgio moroders complete works.

but if you want to go by what i've pointed out several times before, of sales being an indication of influence, the answer is of course "NO" as it's not the biggest selling track in the uk. biggest selling single perhaps, you you again forget about albums

so my logic remains intact

pmsl.... really?

ok then, by your logic 'thriller' is the MOST influencial album of all time! but thats funny really, as we argued side by side against that premis!

well that is your opinion, but in what way can you accurately measure and prove that a track has a greater influence if not by sales?

m8, just listen to the testimonies of other artists, of critics, musicians, dedicated fans, they can spot , they will tell you, what inspired them and why.

an influencial track is one that often cuts new ground, brings a new technique, that inspires others to emulate... it has nothing to do with sales, as its the public who buy the records, not the reletively few artists.

'tomorrow never knows' is often (rightly) cited as one of the most pioneering and influencial tracks ever created, it has 13 new techniques employed in its creation. do you really think that if it had been released as a single it would have topped the charts? no...its simply not commercial enough.

thats why acts like velvet underground, the doors, buffalo springfield, chicken shack, blood sweat and tears, had little or no commercial success but where hugely influencial. even their albums at the time didnt acheive great success.

on the other hand westlife sold 45 million... popularity does not = influence. its as simple as that.

[mushymanrob]

but the key point which you still don't seem to understand is that records can sell millions of copies and not reach number 1

...and the key point YOU dont seem to understand is that a track sells a million copies, it still doesnt mean it was influencial....it means it was popular.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

...and the key point YOU dont seem to understand is that a track sells a million copies, it still doesnt mean it was influencial....it means it was popular.

it means both. how hard is it for you to understand that?

people have to be influenced to buy a track

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

no, its the opinion of the artists who cite them as influencial, not me.

it is still opinion nontheless. i didn't realise from reading your posts that in your opinion you didn't consider those things influential, i thought that was your opinion

fact however, it is not

yes, thats not a good trait, and tbh its rather foolish for any person to carry om believing in something thats been proven inaccurate.

i share your opinion that it's foolish to keep believing in something that's been proven inaccurate, such as many of your points made here. mine however have not been proven inaccurate. you do know what proof means?

'manintheque' highlighted the facts which proved your notion that sales = influence is inaccurate. but you chose to ignore it as it proved that point wrong.

he didn't produce any facts that proved my point inaccurate. in fact i provided proof that his point was innaccurate. several times

this is playground childishness. i fully explained my point which you couldnt counter.

i agree it's childish. i've provided proof that you were wrong and you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that anything i've said is wrong. not one single thing. you've provided your opinions, and you've provided your supporting evidence, but not one bit of proof. you do know the difference between evidence and proof? proof is definitive evidence

because you have NOT answered any of the questions posed.

answer this, yes or no... is 'candle in the wind 97 the most influencial track ever here in the uk?..

yes or no... answer it.

this seems to be evidence that you aren't bothering to read the replies you are given to your questions. i did answer your question, clearly and in detail in post number 402, currently on page 17. have a look back...

i'll repost below. i also made it really simple for you by giving you a yes/no answer, the answer being "NO" as i've bolded below as it obviously wasn't clear enough in the original post which i've simply cut and pasted below. i've also explained why

"another question i clarified before and you ask yet again

if you want to determine if an artist is influential based on sales then you have to compare the artists body of work, rather than separating it into parts

as to that record being influential, obviously it was for it to have such a huge impact on the record buying public. i didn't buy it, but i bought the album the original version version was on, which was a big selling and influential album, not to mention a great one

but if you want to go by what i've pointed out several times before, of sales being an indication of influence, the answer is of course "NO" as it's not the biggest selling track in the uk. biggest selling single perhaps, you you again forget about albums

so my logic remains intact"

ridiculous.

"i have no idea what influence any artist will have from next year onwards, never mind after i die "

you find that statement ridiculous. well i'm sorry i don't have a crystal ball. if i did know, then i'd be a very rich person

yeah, cos boybands started with boyzone didnt they?... they didnt create a market, a market aimed at young/middle aged women has existed since day 1 of the charts...its just lately that market has been fllled by boybands instead of solo balladeers. citing reality tv as an impact of westlife is ridiculous.

no, boybands did not start with boyzone actually. boybands have been going back for years. but we didn't have shows anything like the x factor in previous decades. you had talent shows like opportunity knocks that were open to all sorts of "talent", but none specifically dedicated to finding a musical artist to exploit commercially. you would hardly call opportunity knocks a reality show would you?

but its the hip and trendy musicians that created the rich diverse music industry we have had over the last 60 years.... not the half hearted 'not really bothered' lot, and its THEY who bought disco, not the trendy hipsters who took punk ethics and created the rich and diverse music scene in the post punk era.

well that is your opinion, but common sense will tell you that diverse tastes from different people are responsible for a diverse musical industry. you have to cater for the hip and the unhip. it's the unhip that typically sells more. as for punks being "trendy hipsters", that's a laugh. most people followed punk because they weren't considered trendy so they created an alternative to it

lol you are on a wind up...

punk influenced directly two major styles of music that are still around today (indie, goth) with all their sub genres.... disco didnt.

punk influenced art.... disco didnt
punk influenced literature... disco didnt
punk influenced comedy... disco didnt
punk inspired a range of fashions that are still around today... disco didnt.
punk music inspired a whole generation of music fans to go out and create new music... disco didnt.

the links that prove these points have already been posted.

punk was the greatest influence on british youth culture over the last 40 years and some might argue ever...

and punk evolved directly into post punk, so didnt die out in the 70's but lasted and was influencial on the acid house rave scene of the late 80's.

regardless of what punk influence, it simply wasn't the biggest influence either at the time, or in the following years. you haven't posted any proof. you have only posted your opinions and evidence to back up your claims. do i need to repeat yet again the difference between evidence and proof? i've provided you with genuine proof that shows you were wrong

as for the impact on acid house from punk. that's a laugh. disco had a far bigger impact on acid house, the house music that came before it, and the dance styles that came after it. you've said yourself you weren't a fan of disco or house/dance, plus a whole number of other genres you don't like. that is why you don't understand those genres and the influences they have. i was there playing disco, house, garage, acid, techno to paying punters with fellow dj's and played with some of the biggest dj's in the world, including people who created some of the very first house music, who were disco dj's first. some of the people named previously in this thread and in the wiki articles as being influential. i've discussed music with them, and played music with them and the disco influences are as clear as a day

ok, make a monkey out of me, show me where you answered that and ill accept that you did answer and im an idiot of missing it...

look at post 392...

"sales is more important than chart positions. tracks don't just sell on singles, but on albums and compilations too. from your method of calculating based on charts, led zep would have no influence whatesoever, regardess of them selling 2 to 3 HUNDRED MILLION albums and being the second biggest selling artist in the states, and led zep 4 being the third biggest selling album of all time in the states. and how many singles did they release in the UK whilst they were together?

a big fat ZERO

but selling no singles in the uk didn't stop them selling two to three hundred million records. that makes a complete mockery of your chart based ideas

at a rough guide, strawberry fields forever has sold about 15 million copies if you include albums and compilations. the "blue album" alone sold about that much or more. plus the magical mystery tour EP and later cd, and whatever other compiltions it appeared on. you can completely ignore the single sales and it still sold millions more than release me it didn't get to number 1 in the uk as a single though, but you can't say it wasn't influential just because it wasn't number 1 can you? even with 15 million sales?"

and then you posed your singles based question in post number 400

so when you say "because by your logic, our biggest selling track must be also our most influencial. " right after i've made is clear that is not the case you obviously weren't reading properly, thus the statement you quoted. even then i still gave you a clear answer of "NO" because if you follow my logic the track isn't the biggest selling

nonsense.... utter nonsense.... why? because no artist is that godlike, even the beatles! any artist might produce a single track that is influencial, more often then not its 1 track that others cite. 'i feel love' for eg... THATS the single track that many cite as the begining of electronic dance music, not donna summer or georgio moroders complete works.

nonsense in your opinion of course. and based on the things you've said so far, your opinion appears to reduce in value each time you post

again your example of i feel love is based on opinions

surely if you've been influenced by a piece of music, you've checked out more by the same artist? if a piece of music was so influential, wouldn't you want to hear more? it couldn't have been that influential if you didn't want to hear anything else. giorgio moroder created a lot of influential tracks. just have a read of the open paragraphs on his wiki page. in fact i'd strongly suggest that the next time you mention an artist you do a bit of fact checking first as you'll see just how wrong you are so many times by posting based on your memory or opinions instead of facts

pmsl.... really?

ok then, by your logic 'thriller' is the MOST influencial album of all time! but thats funny really, as we argued side by side against that premis!

no, i don't think i did. i don't know if it's the biggest selling album of all time or not, as the sales figures have been manipulated over the years, but i'm certain it was one of the biggest selling albums of all time, and i consider it one of the most influential albums of all time, thanks to the production of quincy jones, the writing team, the session musicians and collaborating artists like paul maccartney and eddie van halen. you also had the up and coming solo artist who at that time had not fallen foul of drugs, plastic surgery and abusing children, and fame hadn't yet turned him into a complete recluse. of course the title track being influenced by prince's 1999 track (MJ asked for the keyboard motive to copy the 1999 riff - listen to the 2 tracks to hear the similarities) and having a million pound music video by a hit movie director doesn't hurt either

the downside however, is as i've explained before, not all influence will be considered good by all parties, so you have thriller to blame for chris brown, usher, r kelly, bobby brown, and a huge amount of large selling influential crap infecting todays charts

m8, just listen to the testimonies of other artists, of critics, musicians, dedicated fans, they can spot , they will tell you, what inspired them and why.

an influencial track is one that often cuts new ground, brings a new technique, that inspires others to emulate... it has nothing to do with sales, as its the public who buy the records, not the reletively few artists.

again this is your opinion of what influence means. i've pointed out that it has a far wider meaning. and that's not by my opinion, but by fact, by dictionary definition. sales are a result of influence. people buy music because they are influenced into buying it, and the sales figures are a measure of the impact from the music

'tomorrow never knows' is often (rightly) cited as one of the most pioneering and influencial tracks ever created, it has 13 new techniques employed in its creation. do you really think that if it had been released as a single it would have topped the charts? no...its simply not commercial enough.

but for the umpteenth time, tracks don't have to be released as singles to be influential or sell

revolver again proves the point i've been making. it was number one in the UK for 7 weeks and number one in the US for 6 weeks and sold millions of copies over the last 40 odd years. you have no idea what chart position it could have had if released as a single. it was released by the beatles. they could have farted in a paper bag and released it as a single and got to number 1. john lennon actually tried doing that, but made the error of misjudging and making an album instead which to date the only person to have ever listened to it was married to him. in fact he made two more, and even he never listened to the sequels

thats why acts like velvet underground, the doors, buffalo springfield, chicken shack, blood sweat and tears, had little or no commercial success but where hugely influencial. even their albums at the time didnt acheive great success.

on the other hand westlife sold 45 million... popularity does not = influence. its as simple as that.

but proving my point yet again, VU sold a lot of records. in fact if you get your facts right about westlife, you will find that VU actually sold more records than westlife (who sold less than half the amount of records you mention), proving not that popularity=influence as you say, but the other way around, that influence=popularity and sales=impact

[soundstory]

Crikey are you two STILL going at it??

[maninthequeue]

Originally Posted by unique

but proving my point yet again, VU sold a lot of records. in fact if you get your facts right about westlife, you will find that VU actually sold more records than westlife (who sold less than half the amount of records you mention), proving not that popularity=influence as you say, but the other way around, that influence=popularity and sales=impact

I was seriously starting to wonder if you were a WUM posting deliberately stupid and factually inaccurate statements.

But fair play you've finally proven it.

As already mentioned Westlife have sold over 45 million records worldwide.

As for the Velvet Underground:

None of their singles charted anywhere in the world until Venus In Furs was used in a 1994 British advertisement for Dunlop Tyres, and became a minor hit single in the UK and a minor hit in a handful of European countries.

As for their albums:

Whilst they were a going concern the only country their albums charted in were in the USA.

Velvet Underground and Nico - peak#171
White Light/White Heat - #199
The Velvet Underground - #197
Loaded - didn't chart (failed to reach the Top 200).

Since their split 4 VU compilations/Live albums have reached the UK album charts the highest at #47. Whilst the 1985 VU compilation/rarities album reached USA#85, their only Top 100 album.

In 1973 when Lou Reed was finally having some success after his benefactor David Bowie had come to his support, their record label Verve announced that Velvet Underground's total worldwide record sales had just passed 100,000 sales.

In December 2004 on the 40th anniversary of the VU forming, it was announced that the total VU's sales were 477,000 in the USA in the Nielson Soundscan era (who began tracking sales data for Billboard since March 1, 1991).

Hence this meant in the USA they sold just under 35,000 albums per year in the USA in that period.

If you then extrapolate that amount of sales back to 1973 that means another 630,000 sales for the years between 1973 & 1991.

Add those two amounts together and you get 1,107,000 sales. Then accounting for the fact the USA accounts for 30-35% of the global sales market. So let's be generous and say it is only 30%. Then we want to multiply those 1,107,000 sales by 10 divided by 3 (3.333').

= 1107,000 * 3.333' = 3,690,000 sales & add those 100,000 sales announced in 1973, and you are left with less than 4 million sales.

Now of course proportionally the Velvet Underground's back catalogue may have sold more in Europe, etc than in the USA. But even allowing for its back catalogue sales to be double what they are in the USA then this means the VU have sold no more than circa 7.5 million records ..... which is circa 6 times less than the amount of record sales Westlife have managed in their career.

Of course Velvet Underground were so loaded drummer Maureen Tucker was working in Wal-Mart to make ends meet, whilst guitarist Sterling Morrison worked as a tugboat captain giving tours around the Houston Bayou's past Galveston and occasionally into the Gulf of Mexico.

One of the main reasons for Lou Reed & John Cale to reform the VU was due to the financial situation of their two other members, not least as Sterling Morrison did not have healthcare to cover his treatment for cancer, which eventually led to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma which killed him, so they reformed in 1992 (for some "filthy lucre" as another hugely influential band with relatively minimal sales did) to do a tour and support U2 & REM on legs of their world tours.

The Velvet Underground have been considered among the most influential bands in rock history. Their legacy has stretched into alternative and experimental rock. Artists who have acknowledged their influence include David Bowie, Patti Smith; R.E.M., The Cars, The Strokes, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Roxy Music, Beck, The Fall, Pixies, Can, Kraftwerk, Neu!, Faust, Nirvana, Pavement, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Kings of Leon and Crystal Castles. Their four albums were included in Rolling Stone's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (including their debut Velvet Underground & Nico at #13). They were ranked the 19th best artist by the same magazine and the 24th greatest artist in a poll by VH1. Whilst Rate Your Music site has their albums ranked at #5; #46; #83 & #482. In 1996 they were inducted into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

And Westlife a band who have sold 6 to 12 times as many records as the Velvet Underground have influenced errr what exactly other than the continuation of Simon Cowell's money making sausage factory.

On a day when the all star Stock Aitken & Waterman concert has been cancelled officially due to the state of the ground where the event is taking place, whilst avoided the fact that only 50-60% of the tickets have been sold for the event; and ticket sellers have/had been reducing the prices to between £11 & £20 to see the likes of Steps; Kylie; Jason Donovan; Sinitta; Rick Astley; etc; yet whenever the Pixies reform to tour the tickets get sold out as quick as f...; then

I'm over and out of this thread, as there is no further point discussing this with someone who ignores factually recorded sales data to come up with deluded hypnosis that have no baring upon reality that actually occurred; because the argument has been comprehensively and emphatically proven:

Sales do not equate to Influence.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

it is still opinion nontheless. i didn't realise from reading your posts that in your opinion you didn't consider those things influential, i thought that was your opinion

fact however, it is not


i share your opinion that it's foolish to keep believing in something that's been proven inaccurate, such as many of your points made here. mine however have not been proven inaccurate. you do know what proof means?

he didn't produce any facts that proved my point inaccurate. in fact i provided proof that his point was innaccurate. several times

i agree it's childish. i've provided proof that you were wrong and you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that anything i've said is wrong. not one single thing. you've provided your opinions, and you've provided your supporting evidence, but not one bit of proof. you do know the difference between evidence and proof? proof is definitive evidence

this seems to be evidence that you aren't bothering to read the replies you are given to your questions. i did answer your question, clearly and in detail in post number 402, currently on page 17. have a look back...

i'll repost below. i also made it really simple for you by giving you a yes/no answer, the answer being "NO" as i've bolded below as it obviously wasn't clear enough in the original post which i've simply cut and pasted below. i've also explained why

"another question i clarified before and you ask yet again

if you want to determine if an artist is influential based on sales then you have to compare the artists body of work, rather than separating it into parts

as to that record being influential, obviously it was for it to have such a huge impact on the record buying public. i didn't buy it, but i bought the album the original version version was on, which was a big selling and influential album, not to mention a great one

but if you want to go by what i've pointed out several times before, of sales being an indication of influence, the answer is of course "NO" as it's not the biggest selling track in the uk. biggest selling single perhaps, you you again forget about albums

so my logic remains intact"



"i have no idea what influence any artist will have from next year onwards, never mind after i die "

you find that statement ridiculous. well i'm sorry i don't have a crystal ball. if i did know, then i'd be a very rich person

no, boybands did not start with boyzone actually. boybands have been going back for years. but we didn't have shows anything like the x factor in previous decades. you had talent shows like opportunity knocks that were open to all sorts of "talent", but none specifically dedicated to finding a musical artist to exploit commercially. you would hardly call opportunity knocks a reality show would you?

well that is your opinion, but common sense will tell you that diverse tastes from different people are responsible for a diverse musical industry. you have to cater for the hip and the unhip. it's the unhip that typically sells more. as for punks being "trendy hipsters", that's a laugh. most people followed punk because they weren't considered trendy so they created an alternative to it




regardless of what punk influence, it simply wasn't the biggest influence either at the time, or in the following years. you haven't posted any proof. you have only posted your opinions and evidence to back up your claims. do i need to repeat yet again the difference between evidence and proof? i've provided you with genuine proof that shows you were wrong

as for the impact on acid house from punk. that's a laugh. disco had a far bigger impact on acid house, the house music that came before it, and the dance styles that came after it. you've said yourself you weren't a fan of disco or house/dance, plus a whole number of other genres you don't like. that is why you don't understand those genres and the influences they have. i was there playing disco, house, garage, acid, techno to paying punters with fellow dj's and played with some of the biggest dj's in the world, including people who created some of the very first house music, who were disco dj's first. some of the people named previously in this thread and in the wiki articles as being influential. i've discussed music with them, and played music with them and the disco influences are as clear as a day


look at post 392...

"sales is more important than chart positions. tracks don't just sell on singles, but on albums and compilations too. from your method of calculating based on charts, led zep would have no influence whatesoever, regardess of them selling 2 to 3 HUNDRED MILLION albums and being the second biggest selling artist in the states, and led zep 4 being the third biggest selling album of all time in the states. and how many singles did they release in the UK whilst they were together?

a big fat ZERO

but selling no singles in the uk didn't stop them selling two to three hundred million records. that makes a complete mockery of your chart based ideas

at a rough guide, strawberry fields forever has sold about 15 million copies if you include albums and compilations. the "blue album" alone sold about that much or more. plus the magical mystery tour EP and later cd, and whatever other compiltions it appeared on. you can completely ignore the single sales and it still sold millions more than release me it didn't get to number 1 in the uk as a single though, but you can't say it wasn't influential just because it wasn't number 1 can you? even with 15 million sales?"

and then you posed your singles based question in post number 400

so when you say "because by your logic, our biggest selling track must be also our most influencial. " right after i've made is clear that is not the case you obviously weren't reading properly, thus the statement you quoted. even then i still gave you a clear answer of "NO" because if you follow my logic the track isn't the biggest selling

nonsense in your opinion of course. and based on the things you've said so far, your opinion appears to reduce in value each time you post

again your example of i feel love is based on opinions

surely if you've been influenced by a piece of music, you've checked out more by the same artist? if a piece of music was so influential, wouldn't you want to hear more? it couldn't have been that influential if you didn't want to hear anything else. giorgio moroder created a lot of influential tracks. just have a read of the open paragraphs on his wiki page. in fact i'd strongly suggest that the next time you mention an artist you do a bit of fact checking first as you'll see just how wrong you are so many times by posting based on your memory or opinions instead of facts

no, i don't think i did. i don't know if it's the biggest selling album of all time or not, as the sales figures have been manipulated over the years, but i'm certain it was one of the biggest selling albums of all time, and i consider it one of the most influential albums of all time, thanks to the production of quincy jones, the writing team, the session musicians and collaborating artists like paul maccartney and eddie van halen. you also had the up and coming solo artist who at that time had not fallen foul of drugs, plastic surgery and abusing children, and fame hadn't yet turned him into a complete recluse. of course the title track being influenced by prince's 1999 track (MJ asked for the keyboard motive to copy the 1999 riff - listen to the 2 tracks to hear the similarities) and having a million pound music video by a hit movie director doesn't hurt either

the downside however, is as i've explained before, not all influence will be considered good by all parties, so you have thriller to blame for chris brown, usher, r kelly, bobby brown, and a huge amount of large selling influential crap infecting todays charts


again this is your opinion of what influence means. i've pointed out that it has a far wider meaning. and that's not by my opinion, but by fact, by dictionary definition. sales are a result of influence. people buy music because they are influenced into buying it, and the sales figures are a measure of the impact from the music

but for the umpteenth time, tracks don't have to be released as singles to be influential or sell

revolver again proves the point i've been making. it was number one in the UK for 7 weeks and number one in the US for 6 weeks and sold millions of copies over the last 40 odd years. you have no idea what chart position it could have had if released as a single. it was released by the beatles. they could have farted in a paper bag and released it as a single and got to number 1. john lennon actually tried doing that, but made the error of misjudging and making an album instead which to date the only person to have ever listened to it was married to him. in fact he made two more, and even he never listened to the sequels

but proving my point yet again, VU sold a lot of records. in fact if you get your facts right about westlife, you will find that VU actually sold more records than westlife (who sold less than half the amount of records you mention), proving not that popularity=influence as you say, but the other way around, that influence=popularity and sales=impact

oh please say something new. the points i raised stand, you have not disproved anything.

[unique]

Originally Posted by maninthequeue

Sales do not equate to Influence.

so in a nutshell, you don't know how many records VU sold?and you certainly have the number of records sold by westlife very wrongand even though i point out the difference between chart positions and sales, you yet again quote chart positionswestlife have sold closer to 20 million records. don't you think VU sold that many or more in the last 45 years across the world, including albums, singles and compilations?then add lou's solo sales to that, as seperating the two would be a bit pointless as he was the key part in the band. it wouldn't be like adding maccartney or lennons sales to the beatles as that's clearly a different thing, although i would include beatles sales to maccas as he was on those recordsas you can see from what i've pointed out, not only are sales a clear and specific accurate and measured way of demonstrating the impact and influence of music, but the figures show quite clearly as to how close they are with many if not most or all of the artists used as examples of influential. if you use the correct sales for bowie, his biggest selling album to date is the first one listed on this thread as his most influential

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

oh please say something new. the points i raised stand, you have not disproved anything.

i can only presume you can't find any flaws in what i say, as you haven't chopped it up into 20 million parts, and neither have you repeated the same questions numerous times so that's a starti think lydon summed it up well in a quote i copied in a few posts ago. there is nothing wrong with liking disco or punk. it's just pointless to try and make something out to be something which it is not. punk had influence, but disco had a much bigger impact as sales prove

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i can only presume you can't find any flaws in what i say, as you haven't chopped it up into 20 million parts, and neither have you repeated the same questions numerous times so that's a starti think lydon summed it up well in a quote i copied in a few posts ago. there is nothing wrong with liking disco or punk. it's just pointless to try and make something out to be something which it is not. punk had influence, but disco had a much bigger impact as sales prove

of course i can, but ive already addressed them the first time you said it. im bored.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

?and you certainly have the number of records sold by westlife very wrongand even though i point out the difference between chart positions and sales, you yet again quote chart positionswestlife have sold closer to 20 million records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlife

"over 45 million"

YOU are the one thats wrong, yet again.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlife

"over 45 million"

YOU are the one thats wrong, yet again.

it looks like i was wrong that time, as i just read the "The band had 14 UK number ones and 25 top ten singles, consisting of 20.2 million records and videos in the UK across their 14-year career - 6.8 million singles, 11.9 million albums and 1.5 million videos.[3]" partwhich means they were indeed more influential than i thoughti still doubt lou reed has sold less than that in 45 years across the world thoughyou see how easy it is to prove someone wrong when you have the facts, and they will even admit they are wrong. that's the only thing on this thread you've proved wrong though. thank god you are too bored to keep repeating the same things over and over and over again though. maybe the thread can get back to discussing punk and the tv show instead of having to clear up innacuracies

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

it looks like i was wrong that time, as i just read the "The band had 14 UK number ones and 25 top ten singles, consisting of 20.2 million records and videos in the UK across their 14-year career - 6.8 million singles, 11.9 million albums and 1.5 million videos.[3]" partwhich means they were indeed more influential than i thoughti still doubt lou reed has sold less than that in 45 years across the world thoughyou see how easy it is to prove someone wrong when you have the facts, and they will even admit they are wrong. that's the only thing on this thread you've proved wrong though. thank god you are too bored to keep repeating the same things over and over and over again though. maybe the thread can get back to discussing punk and the tv show instead of having to clear up innacuracies

we proved you wrong, you just wont accept it.
its proven with links that punk music transcended music and affected the public psyche, that it influenced art, literature, fashion, comedy, let alone music and a whole variety of musical styles... if you can provide evidence that disco did that then you would have a point... but you cant, because there is no such evidence because disco was one part, one element, in the evolution of dance.

so theres no contest, punk was the biggest influence on british music/youth culture in the last 40 years, or arguably ever.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

we proved you wrong, you just wont accept it.
its proven with links that punk music transcended music and affected the public psyche, that it influenced art, literature, fashion, comedy, let alone music and a whole variety of musical styles... if you can provide evidence that disco did that then you would have a point... but you cant, because there is no such evidence because disco was one part, one element, in the evolution of dance.

so theres no contest, punk was the biggest influence on british music/youth culture in the last 40 years, or arguably ever.

i accept you proved me wrong on that one point just above where you provided some proof, and as you can see i confirmed that was the case

but you haven't provided any other proof at all. in fact, if i read the article about westlife properly i wouldn't have made a mistake and you would have no proof at all

if you had any other proof i'm sure you would have posted it by now, so until that time comes, the proof i have provided proves i've been right all along, apart from the sales of westlife

thus as you can see from the overwhelming proof - not evidence, disco had a considerably greater impact and influence than punk, regardless of your opinions and evidence. you simply can't provide any proof otherwise as none exists. so no argument about it really. facts win other opinion

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i accept you proved me wrong on that one point just above where you provided some proof, and as you can see i confirmed that was the case

but you haven't provided any other proof at all. in fact, if i read the article about westlife properly i wouldn't have made a mistake and you would have no proof at all

if you had any other proof i'm sure you would have posted it by now, so until that time comes, the proof i have provided proves i've been right all along, apart from the sales of westlife

thus as you can see from the overwhelming proof - not evidence, disco had a considerably greater impact and influence than punk, regardless of your opinions and evidence. you simply can't provide any proof otherwise as none exists. so no argument about it really. facts win other opinion

lol

you have posted no proof at all that disco had a larger impact on british youth culture and music.

i/we have posted proof that punk not only inspired the creation of new styles of music, two of which are still going today in an unbroken line.... but transcended music, and influenced art, literature, comedy, and fashion ... and fashions are still here today. thus it would be ridiculous of anybody to suggest any genre of music had a greater impact on british music and youth culture over that last 40 years. but if you want to be ridiculous, please feel free to do so!

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

lol

you have posted no proof at all that disco had a larger impact on british youth culture and music.

i/we have posted proof that punk not only inspired the creation of new styles of music, two of which are still going today in an unbroken line.... but transcended music, and influenced art, literature, comedy, and fashion ... and fashions are still here today. thus it would be ridiculous of anybody to suggest any genre of music had a greater impact on british music and youth culture over that last 40 years. but if you want to be ridiculous, please feel free to do so!

i have posted proof with the sales figures. you haven't posted any proof, only opinions and evidence. do i need to remind you the difference between proof and evidence again?

face the facts, disco had a bigger impact than punk whether you like it or not

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i have posted proof with the sales figures. you haven't posted any proof, only opinions and evidence. do i need to remind you the difference between proof and evidence again?

face the facts, disco had a bigger impact than punk whether you like it or not

no it sold more.... that isnt impact, its popularity, god even a baboon from mars can understand that difference!

incorrect, i posted proof that punk transcended music, it DID influence art, literature and fashion, punk art, punk literature, punk fashions EXIST, how much more 'proof' do you need? jeez... thats not anybodies 'opinion' its a fact.

so all you have are record sales that prove disco was popular, but you cannot say its more popular because you simply dont have any sales figures for all the things punk inspired and exist today as a direct consequence of punk.

just how many indie bands have continued to sell over the last 33 years? how many goth bands? how much has been taken by peoply buying punk inspired music? fashions? literature? or art? let alone comedy, politics, etc. no you cannot possibly say that disco 'sold' more, because you simply do not have any figures to back that up.

fact - disco was big on the dance scene for a few years.... thats it

fact - punk and post punk inspired music is still around today in an unbroken line (i emphisise this because it demonstrates longevity and not a tawdry 'comeback' style)

fact - punk inspired fashions, both clothing and hairstyles that are still around today

fact - punk inspired its own sub genre of art and literature.

its clear that punks impact was far broader and longer then discos was.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

no it sold more.... that isnt impact, its popularity, god even a baboon from mars can understand that difference!

incorrect, i posted proof that punk transcended music, it DID influence art, literature and fashion, punk art, punk literature, punk fashions EXIST, how much more 'proof' do you need? jeez... thats not anybodies 'opinion' its a fact.

so all you have are record sales that prove disco was popular, but you cannot say its more popular because you simply dont have any sales figures for all the things punk inspired and exist today as a direct consequence of punk.

just how many indie bands have continued to sell over the last 33 years? how many goth bands? how much has been taken by peoply buying punk inspired music? fashions? literature? or art? let alone comedy, politics, etc. no you cannot possibly say that disco 'sold' more, because you simply do not have any figures to back that up.

fact - disco was big on the dance scene for a few years.... thats it

fact - punk and post punk inspired music is still around today in an unbroken line (i emphisise this because it demonstrates longevity and not a tawdry 'comeback' style)

fact - punk inspired fashions, both clothing and hairstyles that are still around today

fact - punk inspired its own sub genre of art and literature.

its clear that punks impact was far broader and longer then discos was.

sales is a measure of impact. and disco sold more thus had a bigger impact

you have no other proof of anything else you say

thus the only actual proof you have is that disco had a considerably bigger impact and influence than punk