Is she on course to become the greatest artist ever possibly without question? If she keeps on doing this it will be hard to argue. Her sales are phenomenal and certainly not matched by anyone close in her generation currently, her popularity has to be on par with what Elvis, The Beatles, and MJ were in their peaks. I was speaking to an Adele fan and we were talking its sales suggesting if it really catches fire its possible it will outsell Thriller (somewhere between 50-70 million sales), what a legacy that will be, I cant see it personally as 21 as incredible as it was "only" sold between 25-30 million but who knows?

She can't touch those artists in my opinion. I have her album, which is not all that to be honest, derivative, formulaic, samey and no subtlely in the vocals. There seems to be some sort of weird mass hysteria going on. I can't really work it out.

I'm just glad she's British as it will do our balance of payments some good

I don't believe there is a chance of getting near Thriller, that's one record too far lol. I think Thriller will always be the best-selling album of all time.

Greatest artist ever? No but I can't see anybody coming along to put her (what I would call now pretty solid status) as the most successful artist of her generation anytime soon.

I think in the long term, with at least 3.5 million buying worldwide in the first week it will struggle to sell as much as 21 did but I'd be more than happy to see her match or top 21.

I suppose the big question is, that obviously doesn't need answering a week after the album is released, where does she go next? Surely she can't sustain this level of success in a music industry that is seeing album and single sales dropping.

If you compare by analysing the level of domination over the industry an artist has (surely the only reliable litmust test) then, at the present time, Adele is bigger than all those artists mentioned. It's not even open to question and it isn't an opinion, it's fact. Fact is, '25' is on course to account for over 40% of the total albums sold in the US in its first week and there's no way any of those artists will have ever exercised such domination of the marketplace at any given time. To give you an indication of how massive her domination is right now, when NSYNC sold 2.4m albums in the US in their debut week, that represented 16% of the total album sales that particular week. That NSYNC record has stood for over 15 years and until '25' came along was thought to be untouchable. Whether people like her music or not, at this moment in time, in real terms, she's bigger than anyone ever. But can she sustain it? Who knows?

Cant say at the moment...her stats so far are probably higher than those acts at the same stage of their careers..she might go on and have a great career like that , or maybe fade like Dido.....I personally think she will have a very successful career, but , as big as the acts mentioned in the title?....only time will tell that. It really does depend on the music...that's what all 3 acts mentioned had in spades ...music that a hell of a lot of people loved.

lets not get silly about this. I still think 25 will end up selling less than 21, and neither will come close to Thriller. Also she has plenty to do yet to become a great (musically i mean) and i say that as a fan.

Having said that I never liked Thriller

Yes, . Billboard did a comparison in terms of share. Adele sold 42% of ALL albums so far this week, NSYNC's share was 17%. I wonder how many Adele would have sold back then?

The test of Adele's music will be how it is celebrated in 50 years time. I doubt anyone knew at the time that Elvis and The Beatles would still be so hugely beloved decades later.

I always thought that Michael Jackson was very overrated but his influence on pop music is pretty velar, especially in terms of music videos and performance. Elvis was the perfect combination of vocals and image that captivated his generation and the influence of The Beatles has been poured over a million times. I like Adele's music and personality a lot and think 25 is a very good album but she hasn't had the wider impact that those three or others like Madonna or Bob Dylan have had.

to dominate in her era to that extent is astonishing. But the one thing the others have she doesn't because she can't yet is longevity. As has ben said only time can decide it, not us now. Come back in 40 years and we'll know for sure...or some will, not sure i will

When are people going to realise that you can't make simplistic comparisons between the music industry/sales figures from decades ago and the post-Internet music industry we have today. A proper analysis would have to take into account many different factors. So please stop, it makes you look silly.

The Beatles once held all the top 5 positions in the US singles chart as well as 7 other sings in the top 100 - also that week there were two novelty songs about the Beatles in the top 100 too 'We Love The Beatles' by The Carefree's and 'A Letter to the Beatles' by The Four Preps.
The same week their two released US albums at the time held 1 & 2 in the album chart.

But did they account for 42% of the total album sales that week? That's the real question. That really is an unbelievable figure. It matters not what you think of her/her music, at this moment in time she's doing stuff sales-wise no-one has before. It's just that she's selling in a hugely less healthy market or her sales would be up with/surpassing MJ.

No it's not. That's just an over-simplistic comparison you're making which doesn't take into account the differences between different eras of the music industry.

she's about as big as Elvis..in his later years

Well it's a different time.
The only thing I can find is that in that week in April 64' when The Beatles locked out the top 5 places (with 7 more songs charting) they alone accounted for roughly 2/3's of the total sales in the US Billboard Top 100. So that's somewhere around 66-67%.

Surely an over-simplistic comparison would be simply comparing bald sales figures. I'm not doing that in any way. What would you suggest then?

That's singles; way less important than albums in the grand scheme of things. But still incredibly impressive.

It was a different time, albums weren't held in as high regard in those days in fact The Beatles were one of the acts that really pushed the album's importance.

But my point remains and is not based on actual bald sales figures but level of dominance so did they sell anything like 42% of the total albums sold in this particular week? I genuinely have no idea and I still think it's an unthinkable level of dominance by Adele (wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read the Billboard article). Can we at least agree on this point?

What a stupid thread

I think she's at a critical point tbh, which might sound odd given these sales figures coming in, but i do. She's got three solid albums behind her but she will need to kick on next time round, she needs a bona fide masterpiece to her name, and it will need to be a very different kind of album. If the next is poor and in a similar thematic vein it could go pear-shaped rapidly.

However on the plus side, the Norah Jones/Dido/Duffy comparisons are now seriously redundant. I don't wanna hear them again

The Velvet Underground sold 11,000 copies of their first album and their influence and longevity persists to this day. Black Sabbath sold 100,000 of their first album which was seminal in the development of Heavy Metal. So sales aren't necessarily an indicator or influence or longevity.

Reputations and influence wax and wane over time. Although ABBA sold millions they are more respected now than when they were selling records in the 70s. You might say the same about Madonna who's reputation changes over time. In years to come perhaps Amy Winehouse will be seen to be the major influence rather than Adele. Or then again it might be Kanye or Jay Z depending on how the music of this era gets assessed and re-assessed over time.

Comparing a sales % is just as simplistic as comparing bald sales figures. If you're trying to make a comparison between Adele and popular artists of the past and draw conclusions, you have to take into account the reasons why the biggest selling artist at the moment (Adele) can achieve a bigger % of the sales than the biggest selling artist of another era (let's say The Beatles as they've been mentioned). i.e. the differences in the factors that influence sales %. Obviously the competitiveness of the market (and the reasons for that) is a big one but there are many other factors which aren't very difficult to think of.

So if you're asking me what I suggest, I would suggest enjoying how popular Adele is compared to other artists at the moment (if that's what floats your boat) but not trying to compare or rank her popularity against artists from decades ago when the music industry/climate was completely different as it's really not a simple thing to do.

No, I think Soupietwist is right on most points. It was a different time, an earlier time in the development of pop music. Elvis and The Beatles were hugely influential in that development and the public perception of it. It's an example of the without whom this would not be possible.

The dominance of Adele may just be an example of a big fish in a sea of mediocrity.
She may end up at the top of lists simply because she has sold so many records. Rather in the way certain successful movies hang around this lists long after they have diminished in significance (Gone With the Wind, The Sound of Music, Titanic?).

I like Adele and I would like to see her develop a little in terms of writing style and innovation. If her next album really is a departure from the first three stylistically then I see a lasting future.