cool, thanks James!

you got it completely wrong! :xoxo: look at James' post above and bolded parts. the record buying public is old. that's why they are #6 with record buying public in the US.

young people stream. and 1 stream of course does not equal 1 sale. if streaming was counted n the UK, they may have not been #5 there either?

do we know when the inclusion of streaming started on Billboard 200?

Yes, but touring behind it under that moniker wouldn't have been good. I mean, to me it would be perfekt. But I saw the Time tour, and people around me were bitching left and right, about them being goat less. And the greedy bastards don't want to tarnish the brand by appearing to be goat less.

You're a Stevie fan who pretends to like the album a little so you can drop bombs once in a while. It's pretty obvious. That being said you are entitled to say whatever you want, doesn't bother me. :wavey:

I'd still call 24KG a flop even if tomorrow the album peaks to #1. It's about quality. I never saw effort on 24KG. Not even love.

In practical terms, if an album went to #1, it would be considered a hit. It has nothing to do with our personal opinion of the quality of the album. I mean, plenty of 'hit' albums get bad reviews, just like plenty of 'hit' movies get bad reviews. Likewise, albums that get rave reviews might peak at #50 on Billboard. I guess it's just my opinion that a flop generally didn't meet sales expectations.

As for 24 Karat Gold, I myself hated the album, but I wouldn't say "I never saw effort on it. Not even love." If I remember correctly, and I can't double check because I sold my copy to a record store, Stevie dedicated the album to her mother's memory, who had recently died. I think Stevie said she rerecorded some of those particular demos because they were some of her mother's favorites, or something like that. So love was certainly there, even if you didn't feel it yourself.

Having said all that, even though 24 Karat Gold debuted in the top 10, it ultimately didn't sell much, so it could easily be considered a flop.

It's more predictable than timing an egg. lol

The whole bunch are predictable. And right on time. One after the other. :laugh:

It probably has to do hugely with streaming being counting as sales in the US. The vast majority of the audience that cares about a new album these days by Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks/Buckingham McVie etc is not the type of audience that streams things much, they purchase actual copies. But the albums that they are competing with in the charts, regardless of the audience being completely different, are the ones that get very heavily streamed, putting their sales far ahead.

Streaming being counted for Billboard 200 sales was announced at the end of November 2014, starting sometime in the next month (I remember because this was a few weeks after the Taylor Swift album came out and she was against streaming, but her album still sold insane anyways) and then expanded what types of streams, including singles, etc over the past year or two.

If we're comparing to 24 Karat Gold, that was released about a month or two before the decision about streaming, so most of Stevie's sales would not have been affected by that.

And I might add, if they (being BM/FM/SN) had wanted to try and capitalize on the streaming thing, they should've done what the Rolling Stones did with their last album (albeit filled with covers) released at the end of last year. They did a lot of promotion with Apple Music-- released videos of Mick and Keith talking about the album, had the Apple Music site feature the album prominently, etc. And then they debuted first place in the UK, 4th in the US, sold pretty well in both countries and according to this tweet https://twitter.com/RollingStones/st...47645386534912, sold 2 million copies across the world.

Now obviously a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that they're the Rolling Stones and have a different level of fame than Fleetwood Mac and any of its members but I do think that the fact that they were smart about appealing to the streaming audience made a difference.

OMG, it's exhausting-- why oh why must there be comparisons between this duet record and Stevie's latest solo album? Who the eff cares? The sales figures for LB/CM are pretty good--and doing more than I thought they would.

What's more, the quality of the music is pretty damn high, higher in fact than I think any of us would have had a right to expect as these people enter or are already in the seventh decade of their lives.

I don't even care that is not called FLEETWOOD MAC. We got new music, and it's damn good. I'm feeling bliss.

You're welcome David.

I think your influence has finally rubbed off on me.

2017 the year I pull no punches.

This post makes me happy! Be honest. Pull no punches. Take no prisoners. Yet, love your neighbor. Because all those are possible at the same time. :wavey:

I haven't bought it yet, but have been streaming it every day since it was released.
I pay for Apple Music every month, so I don't buy music the way that I used to.

If there was no streaming, I would have bought it on day one.

I have to agree. When I saw FM four times on their last tour and Stevie once last year, there were A LOT of young people in attendance. FM appears to be quite " a thing" among youngsters. I can't help but feel this record could have been way bigger if if was released under the FM name. But I could be dead wrong. Do young people even buy full albums anymore? Dunno. I'm not young. :D:D

Good point! Do they know what albums are?