Adele’s 25 Probably Isn’t Going to Sell As Many Copies As 21, and It Doesn’t Matter

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Last month, Adele finally revealed that her new album 25 will be released on November 20, nearly five years after 21 broke all sorts of sales records. Well, more like smashed them: 21 was the first album since Thriller to hold the top spot on Billboard’s year-end album chart for two consecutive years. It has sold over 30 million copies globally, and is the only album in the last decade to earn a diamond certification — meaning over 10 million U.S. copies sold — in less than two years. After 240 weeks, it still regularly outsells much newer releases, like Ariana Grande’s My Everything. For comparison, Taylor Swift's 1989, presumably the second-best-selling album of the 2010s so far, has sold roughly half as many copies in the U.S. In under five years, and in an age when physical-album sales drop every year, 21 is one of the best-selling albums of all time.

This means, of course, that the sales of 25 will be a big part of the narrative around the record. Already, the projections “are absolutely insane” and “the only suspense about 25, right now, is over just how big it will be.” Can Adele "save the record industry," which is depending on 25 to boost fourth-quarter sales? She’s off to a good start with both new and old metrics: The first single, “Hello,” debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and set the single-day U.S. record for downloads and streams in one week, and over 1 million sales for the album in its first week are “a lock.” “The expectations are incredibly high,” says Keith Caulfield, co-director of charts at Billboard. “It’s doing so well based on pre-orders that people are asking themselves, ‘Okay, how big can this album possibly get?’”

25 is going to sell millions of copies. But it’s unlikely to match the sales of 21 — because almost nobody has ever been able to top that kind of success. If the sales even come close, it won’t be for years — the slow burn after a big-star moment is what makes sales feats like 21 even possible in this age. Adele herself seems to be aware of this: “It’s a write-off to expect anything close,” she told BBC Radio 1 DJ Nick Grimshaw last week. "It was phenomenal what happened, but it was a phenomenon."

“Only a handful of albums have been able to do what 21 did,” Caulfield said. “If you compare them, then it becomes the story of, ‘Oh, it didn’t do what 21 did,’ and therefore someone might see that as a failure.”

[video=youtube;YQHsXMglC9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQHsXMglC9A[/video]

It wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened. The list of albums that have been deemed failures or “relative flops” for not living up to their predecessors’ megasales is long — and the pressure suffered by artists trying to match themselves is intense. Alanis Morissette’s Jagged Little Pill sold 15 million copies in the U.S, but Morissette suffered anxiety attacks after backlash from fans and media. The follow-up, the hypnotic Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, sold less than a fifth of that and, despite its platinum status, is still considered a “disappointment.” Fleetwood Mac famously took 13 months and spent $1 million (plus unknown cocaine bills) to record Tusk, the follow-up to the 20 million-selling Rumors; the brilliant but defiantly weird album hit No. 4 in the U.S.and sold “just” 2 million copies. Bruce Springsteen seemed to deliberately follow the diamond-certified Born in the U.S.A. with an introspective album, Tunnel of Love, that could never hope to be as big. (Even with its paltry 3 million in sales, it’s remembered as the album that paled in comparison.) More recently, Lady Gaga’s ARTPOP was plagued by scurrilous rumors of poor sales before it was even released. The ultimate flop, right? Sure, especially if you’re measuring it against the massive success of 2011’s Born This Way.

Even Michael Jackson couldn’t avoid this trap. Thriller has sold over 65 million copies worldwide. The King of Pop himself said that if the follow-up Bad didn’t match that same level of success, it would be a failure, and that it needed to be “as perfect as humanly possible.” He was so consumed by the process that he wrote over 60 songs and considered releasing 33 of them as a triple album until Quincy Jones talked him out of it. Jackson angled for an unprecedented 100 million in sales. Bad sold nowhere near that number, and to this day has only sold approximately half as many copies as Thriller. But that’s still good enough to make it one of the best-selling records of all time.

The sales-expectations game can overshadow the actual music, which is why it’s best not to think of records like Thriller and 21 as normal albums at all. They’re more like cultural events — or phenomena, as Adele put it — that are powered by multiple chart-topping singles (Jewel’s 12 million-selling Pieces of You had three), consistent sales (Hootie & the Blowfish’s Cracked Rear View sold 16 million but took five years to go diamond), and mass-cultural moments that help sustain the public’s interest (Thriller’s iconic, big-budget 13-minute music video more than doubled album sales even though it was the seventh and final single; Adele’s appearance at the 2012 Grammys, a year after 21 came out, increased sales by 207 percent; the box-office success of Alan Parker’s animated film and laser light shows that continue to this day helped Pink Floyd’s The Wall.)

In other words, there’s an element of luck, a catching of cultural lightning in a bottle, to selling this many records. Of course, none of this means it's impossible for 25 to do as well as 21 — after all, at a time when both album sales and singles sales were going down, 21 kept going up — it would just be very rare. Think of it this way: AC/DC only has one Back in Black (22 million), and Bruce Springsteen only has one Born in the U.S.A. (15 million). Subsequent albums often bolster the sales of these classics, but they rarely — if ever — outdo them.

A few exceptions do come to mind. Chris Molanphy, the pop-chart columnist for Slate, points out: “Whitney Houston, for example, her debut album sold something like 14 million copies in America, and then the Bodyguard soundtrack [yet another example of an event album that tapped into the Zeitgeist at the right time] sold a similar number. So she came back. It’s possible, when you have a massive hit, to repeat that success.” Ditto Eminem: Both The Marshall Mathers LP and The Eminem Show sold over 10 million copies.

Adele herself seems pretty grounded about the pressure, recently telling Rolling Stone that she doesn’t follow what’s on the charts or in popular culture. If she’s been cracking up with anxiety over expectations for 25, we’ve yet to hear about it. Maybe the rest of us could take a cue from her and remember: The sales of 25 do not determine its success or failure. The music does.

http://www.vulture.com/2015/10/adele-25-sales-comparisons.html#
 
I find this subject interesting because every artists have their "Thriller" album and how hard it is to do follow up for it.
What you think Adele's single?
 
Again media bias. Those same journalists and "music" critics labeled Bad as failure and flop before it was even released and they were hoping for its doom. And now they are defending Adele if she fails to match her sales. Praising the music before they even heard it and stuff. Hypocrisy. They are all cheering for her to outsell Michael. But it will never happen.
 
I think Adele doesn't have a lot to offer musically. Her songs aren't bad but they are not too different from each other. 19 and 21 both have the same sound and I believe it will be the same way with 25.

I love how the media were over praising Taylor Swift just a couple of weeks ago but now they're all about how Adele kicks Taylor's ass. Before that it was Katy Perry. :lol:
 
I think Adele doesn't have a lot to offer musically. Her songs aren't bad but they are not too different from each other. 19 and 21 both have the same sound and I believe it will be the same way with 25.

I love how the media were over praising Taylor Swift just a couple of weeks ago but now they're all about how Adele kicks Taylor's ass. Before that it was Katy Perry. :lol:

Weird that they are all white Americans or Brits. ;)
 
I've always considered 21 the 2010s version of Thriller, it sold way more than any other record of it's time, everyone knows the music on the album, it propelled Adele to levels of absolute superstardom and, for Adele, it's going to be her personal Thriller. No clue if Adele will ever outsell 21, what I do know is that Hello is not only doing extremely well, pretty much everyone I've talked to about it likes the song and even I have pre-ordered the album (well, it's not for me personally but as a gift for a family member). Looking forward to the album and seeing it's success. I wish her well :)

Also, while I don't disagree with you entirely Onir, I can't say I've seen critics "cheering" for Adele to overtake Michael Jackson's sales. In addition, I think that while the critics back then were complete asswipes to Michael, I'm not going to get angry at the critics of today for doing this to Adele 30 years on because I'd much rather see this sort of attitude than what they displayed for Michael.
 
I'll never get the appeal of Adele. I think her music is boring and overrated
 
I'll never get the appeal of Adele. I think her music is boring and overrated
I'm not that familiar with Adele-I know three songs from constant play on the radio-"rolling in the deep", "rumour has it(?), and the James Bond song-and so far, I think most of her songs sound similar to each other.

But she can SING, and it's nice to hear a REAL singer on the radio and glad that her albums are doing well-I think that makes it promising for the future of music. I would like to see Tori Kelly hit it big with some great retro music-I was so impressed with her voice at the Berry Gordy tribute.


Edit to add: Even though I'm glad her albums are selling well, I'm pretty put out with Billboard's methodology of computing stats-putting 21 over Thriller is completely strange to me-I KNOW 21 didn't have seven top 10 hits-and Thriller spent much longer in the top spot. In fact, has it ever left the top 200 since 82? That should say something right there.
 
Edit to add: Even though I'm glad her albums are selling well, I'm pretty put out with Billboard's methodology of computing stats-putting 21 over Thriller is completely strange to me-I KNOW 21 didn't have seven top 10 hits-and Thriller spent much longer in the top spot. In fact, has it ever left the top 200 since 82? That should say something right there.

Funnily enough I did some looking to see how many Top Tens 21 did have and I ended up finding out that Adele's 21 had more #1 hit's than Thriller did. Of the 5 singles released from 21, 3 went to #1 in the USA (Rolling in the Deep, Someone Like You and Set Fire to the Rain); Of the 7 singles released from Thriller, 2 went to #1 in the USA (Billie Jean and Beat It).

However in saying that, Thriller has over twice the Top Ten hits, with all 7 singles reaching the top ten rather than 3 of the 5 for 21. The Girl is Mine was also pretty close at #2!

Honestly, I think Thriller probably has left the Top 200 at some point in the last 33 years, especially around the child molestation allegations when MJ's popularity was at an all time low and the allegations would've turned people off buying his music. That's just my guess though, I really want the find out the legit answer to this :p

Also in regards to Billboard and their odd ranking system, at least they gave credit to MJ here: http://www.billboard.com/articles/e...-most-weeks-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-by-title
 
^^well that's a record where he's so far ahead that no one will ever top it.
You are probably right about Thriller dropping off after 93 or 2003-2005. It was in catalog albums so that might count for less.
I just think their methodology is skewered.
I'm happy to see 2 albums that I ran out to buy are there. Fleet wood Mac and Saturday Night Fever. LOL.

Seems like my few comments on the billboard site have caused people to attack so I need to quit making comments.

(I don't think I've heard that 3rd Adele song. But I'm glad she's selling so well bc it proves people still appreciate great vocalists.)
 
^^well that's a record where he's so far ahead that no one will ever top it.
You are probably right about Thriller dropping off after 93 or 2003-2005. It was in catalog albums so that might count for less.
I think Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd is the longest charting album in Billboard. It was at one point, I guess it still is. Dark Side came out in 1973.
 
DuranDuran;4116587 said:
I think Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd is the longest charting album in Billboard. It was at one point, I guess it still is. Dark Side came out in 1973.

Yeah I've heard that as well. Came across this...

"In July 1988, 736 weeks after it debuted on Billboard’s album chart, Pink Floyd‘s 1973 classic ‘The Dark Side of the Moon’ finally left the weekly Top 200 listing. Twenty-five years after that chart record was set, it still hasn’t been broken... ...The album re-entered the Top 200 and stayed there for five more weeks, bringing the album’s total tally to 741 weeks. But wait — that still isn’t the end of the record’s chart domination. With the addition of Billboard’s Catalog Albums chart — which ranks older LPs that still manage to sell well each week — ‘The Dark Side of the Moon’ managed to log another 15 years, bring its total to more than 1,500 weeks."

Billboard.com also states:
"Longest Run on the Billboard 200 - Pink Floyd's acclaimed 1973 classic "Dark Side of the Moon" has spent an amazing 861 weeks riding the Billboard 200 album chart. That's over 16 (non-consecutive) years!" (so that wouldn't be including the 'catalog albums)
 
Last edited:
I've always considered 21 the 2010s version of Thriller, it sold way more than any other record of it's time, everyone knows the music on the album, it propelled Adele to levels of absolute superstardom and, for Adele, it's going to be her personal Thriller. No clue if Adele will ever outsell 21, what I do know is that Hello is not only doing extremely well, pretty much everyone I've talked to about it likes the song and even I have pre-ordered the album (well, it's not for me personally but as a gift for a family member). Looking forward to the album and seeing it's success. I wish her well :)

Also, while I don't disagree with you entirely Onir, I can't say I've seen critics "cheering" for Adele to overtake Michael Jackson's sales. In addition, I think that while the critics back then were complete asswipes to Michael, I'm not going to get angry at the critics of today for doing this to Adele 30 years on because I'd much rather see this sort of attitude than what they displayed for Michael.

I don't think 21 is like Thriller, to be honest. I just do not see it having the same cultural-social impact. Yes, it is a successful album but there have been many successful albums in pop history - many a lot more successful than 21. People seem to forget that Thriller was not the only heavily successful album ever before 21.
21 is more like Shania Twain's Come on Over or the Bodyguard soundtrack IMO than Thriller. Big success, but I doubt it will have the long term social-cultural impact of Thriller. But then we will see in 20-30 years.

I think people who think 21 has the same impact as Thriller really should read this: http://www.billboard.com/articles/c...hriller-at-30-how-one-album-changed-the-world

And well, I do not like Hello. I think it is a very average song hyped to high heavens because it is Adele. IMO there are much better singers than her, but they are usually black and do not get 1/10th of the hype and attention from the media. The only song I like from Adele is Rolling in the Deep.
 
I don't think 21 is like Thriller, to be honest. I just do not see it having the same cultural-social impact. Yes, it is a successful album but there have been many successful albums in pop history - many a lot more successful than 21. People seem to forget that Thriller was not the only heavily successful album ever before 21.
21 is more like Shania Twain's Come on Over or the Bodyguard soundtrack IMO than Thriller. Big success, but I doubt it will have the long term social-cultural impact of Thriller. But then we will see in 20-30 years.

I'm still going to consider it the '2010s Thriller' and 'Adele's Thriller' because I find they have many similarities.

Thriller introduced Michael Jackson to a far wider audience than any previous record of his had, pushing him to super stardom.
21 introduced Adele to a far wider audience than any previous record of hers had, pushing her to super stardom.

Thriller sold many, many more millions of records than records did at it's time.
21 sold many, many more millions of records than records did at it's time.

Everyone has heard the biggest singles from Thriller (Notably Thriller, Billie Jean and Beat It).
Everyone has heard the biggest singles from 21 (Notably Rolling in the Deep, Someone Like You and Set Fire to the Rain).

The album Thriller has had the longest reign at #1 in the USA for an album by a male artist.
The album 21 has had the longest reign at #1 in the USA for an album by a female artist.

Thriller helped save the music industry.
21 helped saved the music industry (I recall reading somewhere that without it, record sales percentages would've gone into the negatives for at least one quarter in 2012).

Thriller was the best selling album two years in a row (1983 and 1984).
21 was the best selling album two years in a row (2011 and 2012).
(Only two albums to accomplish this feat. actually!)

The time difference between the releases of Thriller and Bad was ~5 years.
The time difference between the releases of 21 and 25 are ~5 years.

Thriller is the highest selling album of Michael Jackson's career.
21 will likely be the highest selling album of Adele's career.

I do not think 21 had the same social-cultural impact as Thriller though, and, as with every album, there are differences (i.e. Thriller had higher profile music videos than 21). Regardless, I think they're very comparable albums in many ways and if you want to disagree then well, we'll just agree to disagree :)
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough I did some looking to see how many Top Tens 21 did have and I ended up finding out that Adele's 21 had more #1 hit's than Thriller did. Of the 5 singles released from 21, 3 went to #1 in the USA (Rolling in the Deep, Someone Like You and Set Fire to the Rain); Of the 7 singles released from Thriller, 2 went to #1 in the USA (Billie Jean and Beat It).

However in saying that, Thriller has over twice the Top Ten hits, with all 7 singles reaching the top ten rather than 3 of the 5 for 21. The Girl is Mine was also pretty close at #2!

Honestly, I think Thriller probably has left the Top 200 at some point in the last 33 years, especially around the child molestation allegations when MJ's popularity was at an all time low and the allegations would've turned people off buying his music. That's just my guess though, I really want the find out the legit answer to this :p

Also in regards to Billboard and their odd ranking system, at least they gave credit to MJ here: http://www.billboard.com/articles/e...-most-weeks-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-by-title

I am not sure what the singles have to do with Billboard's album charts. I though they have a different chart for singles. And while we are at that, Bad had more #1 hits than either Thriller or 21 and it's just #138 on this greatest album charts. So probably that doesn't amount for much in the album chart, if it amounts for anything at all.

Also, while I am sure Thriller has left the charts sometimes in the past 33 years, but it is still charting pretty regularly. Yes, Dark Side of the Moon and Bob Marley's greatest hits album Legend (which is the second longest charting album) regularly chart too. If you guys want data:

So far this year Legend sold 171,000 copies. DSOTM 133,000 copies, Thriller 103,000 copies. However both Marley and Pink Floyd have only one album in the Top 50 catalog albums, while MJ has four! Bad sold 108,000 copies, Essential (which BTW contains most of Thriller) 97,000 copies and Number Ones 91,000 copies. So this makes MJ by far the most successful catalog artist. It's just that his sales are divided between more albums. Basically someone can buy Essential and have most of Thriller (I think only Baby Be Mine and The Lady in My Life are not on it from Thriller) plus a lot more songs from other albums. Even of greatest hits albums MJ's sales are divided between two. Everyone who wants a Marley album buys Legend. There is nothing else that sells from Marley. His studio albums in themselves are not that famous. But people who want to buy an MJ GH album divide their sales between Essential and Number Ones. Which putting together would mean 188,000 copies of GH sales.

Oh, 21 is a catalog album now as well and it sold 145,000 copies this year. So it is selling normal catalog album range now (of course still having the advantage of being relatively fresh compared to other catalog albums). Obviously now it will have another boost, because every time an artist releases something new the catalog is boosted as well.
 
I am not sure what the singles have to do with Billboard's album charts.

Well this thread isn't focused solely on Billboard album charts and the post I was replying to mentioned Thriller's 7 Top Ten singles, which led me to investigate how many 21 had out of curiosity and I was actually surprised because I thought Thriller had more #1s but turns out I was wrong (nothing against Thriller, I mean, we're talking about Thriller here! Which I obviously prefer over 21).

Oh, 21 is a catalog album now as well and it sold 145,000 copies this year. So it is selling normal catalog album range now.

What defines an album as a catalog album? Like how many years?
 
Thriller helped save the music industry.
21 helped saved the music industry (I recall reading somewhere that without it, record sales percentages would've gone into the negatives for at least one quarter in 2012).

I don't think 21 saved the record industry. The record industry is still struggling and declining year after year after year. Commercially, in terms of overall sales is in a worse shape now than when 21 was released. What kind of saving is that? When people say Thriller saved the record industry it did not just mean its individual success. It really meant it set some new trends which also helped other artists to strive. For example, before Thriller's success Prince was largely ignored by white media. 1999 was originally released before Thriller but other than black radio, no one really cared. After Thriller's success they re-released it with a video and it became a huge international hit. So those are the type of things that we talk about when we say Thriller saved the record industry. It set new trends, it introduced new type of uses of the video medium, MTV, choregraphy, the rise of singing-dancing superstars etc. I just don't see 21 having a similar impact on the industry. Adele is well liked but I do not see her as a trend-setter.

And I think most of your other points can be attributed to many albums in history not just Thriller or 21. Thriller was not the only other blockbuster album of the record industry. There have been other albums which were huge in their time, which for a moment even seemed to be on their way to break Thriller's records, which people hyped just as much back then as they hype 21 in this era. I am old enough to remember those hypes. They were not unlike the Adele hype now. I remember the Bodyguard craze. The Shania Twain craze. Come on Over sold over 40 million world wide! And where is it now? Do you see it still chart regularly on the catalog album chart. I don't.

Of course, it is in the future what kind of album 21 will be - one that will still be remembered and listened to in 20-30 years or one that was massively hyped once but does not have the presistence of Thriller, DSOTM or Legend. I can't predict that and I guess a lot will also depend on how Adele's future career will go.
 


What defines an album as a catalog album? Like how many years?


Billboard defines a catalog title as one that is more than eighteen months old and that has fallen below position 100 on the Billboard 200.

The only exception to the "eighteen months old" rule pertains to holiday releases (for example, Christmas albums). A "holiday" release is eligible for the Billboard 200 only during its initial year of release. After its first year, a holiday-related album appears on Top Pop Catalog Albums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Pop_Catalog_Albums
 
I don't think 21 saved the record industry. The record industry is still struggling and declining year after year after year. Commercially, in terms of overall sales is in a worse shape now than when 21 was released. What kind of saving is that? When people say Thriller saved the record industry it did not just mean its individual success. It really meant it set some new trends which also helped other artists to strive. For example, before Thriller's success Prince was largely ignored by white media. 1999 was originally released before Thriller but other than black radio, no one really cared. After Thriller's success they re-released it with a video and it became a huge international hit. So those are the type of things that we talk about when we say Thriller saved the record industry. It set new trends, it introduced new type of uses of the video medium, MTV, choregraphy, the rise of singing-dancing superstars etc. I just don't see 21 having a similar impact on the industry. Adele is well liked but I do not see her as a trend-setter.

And I think most of your other points can be attributed to many albums in history not just Thriller or 21. Thriller was not the only other blockbuster album of the record industry. There have been other albums which were huge in their time, which for a moment even seemed to be on their way to break Thriller's records, which people hyped just as much back then as they hype 21 in this era. I am old enough to remember those hypes. They were not unlike the Adele hype now. I remember the Bodyguard craze. The Shania Twain craze. Come on Over sold over 40 million world wide! And where is it now? Do you see it still chart regularly on the catalog album chart. I don't.

Of course, it is in the future what kind of album 21 will be - one that will still be remembered and listened to in 20-30 years or one that was massively hyped once but does not have the presistence of Thriller, DSOTM or Legend. I can't predict that and I guess a lot will also depend on how Adele's future career will go.

Fair points, but I'll stand by what I said. I'm keen to see what becomes of her career and, for now, how 25 turns out (and I agree, I think the success of 21 and other albums in the long term will depend on how her future career goes).
 

Oh thanks! Not entirely sure why they couldn't just include catalog albums along with the bigger albums (not against the presence of a catalog chart, just against forcing its catalog albums off the normal charts). I mean just imagine what the charts would've looked like right after MJ died! He'd probably own all Top Five spots on the charts which has never been done before with an album! (Songs, yes once but never albums!!).

I believe Michael's death and the success of his catalog albums afterwards was a huge factor in the allowance of catalog albums on the normal charts, as it always should be imo.
 
Oh thanks! Not entirely sure why they couldn't just include catalog albums along with the bigger albums (not against the presence of a catalog chart, just against forcing its catalog albums off the normal charts). I mean just imagine what the charts would've looked like right after MJ died! He'd probably own all Top Five spots on the charts which has never been done before with an album! (Songs, yes once but never albums!!).

I believe Michael's death and the success of his catalog albums afterwards was a huge factor in the allowance of catalog albums on the normal charts, as it always should be imo.


Yes, it was largely due to MJ's catalog albums charting after his death why Billboard changed its catalog album policy and now catalog albums are allowed on the main charts. After MJ's death Number Ones was the best selling album for three weeks and Essential was #2 but due to the Billboard policy at the time they could not be officially #1 and #2 on the main charts.

It was after that they changed that policy.
 
And so it begins... :smilerolleyes:

Unlike Michael Jackson, who spent his career chasing the success of Thriller, Adele has avoided the temptation to make a "grand statement" with her follow-up.


Instead, she sounds relaxed, conversational and inspired, on a set of songs that come straight from the heart.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34833655


Why the need for jabs at MJ? What the heck Adele has to do with MJ? Considering Bad is one of the few studio catalog albums that still sells after 28 years, I'd say it was not bad follow-up to Thriller. Let's see if 25 will be all that. No, not now, because it will be hyped like crazy for now, I am sure. But let's come back to it in 15-20 years and how it stood the test of time. Because Bad did. Until then, leave MJ out of it please.
 
[h=1]Adele: 25 review &#8211; 'We've been here before,' she sings. And she's right[/h] 3 / 5 stars <svg width="14" height="13" viewBox="0 0 14 13">
</path></svg> <svg width="14" height="13" viewBox="0 0 14 13">
</path></svg> <svg width="14" height="13" viewBox="0 0 14 13">
</path></svg> <svg width="14" height="13" viewBox="0 0 14 13">
</path></svg> <svg width="14" height="13" viewBox="0 0 14 13">
</path></svg>
The year&#8217;s biggest album reprises the themes of its predecessor &#8211; there&#8217;s no sign of Adele using her commercial clout to buy herself room for adventure





There&#8217;s something curiously irrelevant about reviewing Adele&#8217;s third studio album. The astonishing sales of its first single, Hello, suggest that global success on a scale unseen since the last time Adele released an album is already a foregone conclusion. The public seems even less interested in critical opinion than usual, if such a thing is possible. It has already been taken as read that 25 is a masterpiece: its quality isn&#8217;t up for question.

<aside class="element element-rich-link element--thumbnail element-rich-link--upgraded" data-component="rich-link" data-link-name="rich-link-2 | 1">

[h=1]Adele: &#8216;I can finally reach out a hand to my ex. Let him know I&#8217;m over it&#8217;[/h]


</aside> Certainly, no one who buys it is going to angrily return it to the shop because it wasn&#8217;t what they expected. For the most part, 25 sticks close to the formula of the best-known tracks on its predecessor, 21: big, piano-led ballads, decorated with strings and brass, dealing with heartbreak. In fact, most of them seem to deal with exactly the same heartbreak that fuelled 21: five years on, Adele is still, metaphorically speaking, planted on her ex&#8217;s lawn at 3am, tearfully lobbing her shoes at his bedroom window.


You can see why this has happened. 21&#8217;s vast success was at least partially predicated on the personal nature of the songwriting, but the things that have happened in Adele&#8217;s personal life since its release &#8211; vast fame and its attendant pressures, domestic contentment and motherhood &#8211; are difficult topics to write about without sounding ungrateful or trite respectively. That said, she occasionally gives it a go: Remedy offers a bit of Fix You-style sentimentality, and Million Years Ago rather affectingly depicts old friends who now &#8220;can&#8217;t look me in the eye, it&#8217;s like they&#8217;re scared of me&#8221;.


But the fact that she often ends up addressing a topic that has already been fairly thoroughly addressed is a problem. The songs are invariably beautifully delivered &#8211; in a world of singers who feel impelled to express emotion by vocally doing their nut, Adele understands that less is usually more &#8211; but something is missing from them. The raw emotional edge that was part of 21&#8217;s appeal is noticeable by its absence, replaced by what sounds less like closure and reconciliation than a certain pass-aggy bent: &#8220;Send my love to your new lover,&#8221; she sings brightly, &#8220;I hope you treat her better.&#8221; In fact, it&#8217;s hard not to start feeling your sympathy shift a little from the dumpee to the dumper. &#8220;When I call you never seem to be home,&#8221; she protests on Hello, which does rather make you think: well, you have just sold 30m copies of an album largely concerned with telling the world what a terrible shit he is. He&#8217;s probably trying to keep a fairly low profile.






There&#8217;s an argument that 25 bears comparison to the work of John Grant, another confessional singer-songwriter who has thus far wrung two hugely acclaimed albums of material out of a single failed relationship. The big difference is that there&#8217;s none of Grant&#8217;s blackly comic laughter here, none of his leavening self-deprecating humour. Grant is always tipping you the wink that he knows he&#8217;s going on a bit; Adele, on the other hand, just seems to be going on a bit. &#8220;This is never ending, we&#8217;ve been here before,&#8221; she sings on Love in the Dark. You can say that again.


In fairness, the feeling that you&#8217;re heading once more down a very well-trodden path matters less when the music really clicks: Hello is a pretty bulletproof bit of songwriting, and All I Ask sounds appealingly like the showstopping ballad from a hugely successful Broadway musical. Often, though, it slinks unremarkably into the middle of the road. They&#8217;re not bad songs as such, but they feel slightly ordinary, distinguished only by her voice, a state of affairs compounded by the fact that the much of the album proceeds at the same, fairly glacial pace.
<aside class="element element-rich-link element--thumbnail element-rich-link--upgraded" data-component="rich-link" data-link-name="rich-link-2 | 2">

[h=1]Adele: 'I don't let body image issues rule my life'[/h]




</aside> The biggest disappointment turns out to be the album&#8217;s most anticipated collaboration, When We Were Young, co-authoured by lauded Canadian songwriter Tobias Jesso Jr. It should have been intriguing to hear his obsession with music made in mid-70s California &#8211; Harry Nilsson, Randy Newman, the Lennon of Walls and Bridges &#8211; rubbing up against Adele&#8217;s crowd-pleasing songwriting approach, but somehow they have contrived to come up with a song that sounds like something Jimmy Young might have played on Radio 2 in 1978. Clearly no one buys an Adele album expecting bleeding-edge sonic innovation, in much the same way that no one buys a Sleaford Mods album in the hope of finding a tear-jerking ballad suitable for performing at The X Factor final, but the feeling that it doesn&#8217;t all have to be quite as rounded-edged as this is hard to shake.


By contrast, 25&#8217;s best moments come when someone pushes Adele &#8211; or Adele pushes herself &#8211; beyond just recreating former glories. Set to a finger-picked acoustic guitar, Million Years Ago is audibly influenced by French chanson, its lovely melody recalling in equal parts Charles Aznavour&#8217;s Hier Encore and the old Theme from Mash, Suicide Is Painless. Her two collaborations with longstanding producer Paul Epworth are great, particularly I Miss You, which is wreathed in ghostly backing vocals, tumbling drums and time-stretched, vaguely dubstepish vocal samples. Likewise the Danger Mouse-helmed River Lea &#8211; the closest thing the album comes to its predecessor&#8217;s Rolling in the Deep &#8211; its organ-led, faintly gospel-like mood given a tiny hint of strangeness by the producer&#8217;s liberal application of echo.


It&#8217;s an album that could have done with more stuff like that: more variety, more sense of an artist using the space and freedom that shifting 30m units buys you to move on, at least a little. As it is, 25&#8217;s big issue is that, in every sense, it dwells a little too heavily on the past.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/nov/19/adele-25-album-review
 
[h=1]Adele - '25'[/h] The album millions have been waiting for is emotional and bombastic but disappointingly safe






Press

Leonie Cooper, 18th November 2015





  • Release Date 20 Nov, 2015
  • Producer Greg Kurstin, Paul Epworth, Ariel Rechtshaid, Danger Mouse, Max Martin
  • Record Label XL
3 / 5
Aside from the mountains of cash, the fabulous manicures and ceiling-scraping blow-dries, the adulation of millions and being born with the gift of a golden voice, it can&#8217;t have been easy being Adele of late. It&#8217;s got to be pretty scary following up one of the most successful albums ever &#8211; 2011&#8217;s &#8216;21&#8217; is the fourth best selling in UK chart history &#8211; even if you know your new one&#8217;s a dead cert for number one (&#8216;25&#8217; is expected to sell between 1.3 and 1.8 million copies in its first week).

On &#8217;25&#8217; we discover the 27-year-old&#8217;s response to such a dilemma is a sensible - if not entirely novel - one. This is the sound of someone playing the game so safely they might as well have strapped on shin-pads and a crash helmet.

With Adele&#8217;s sophisticated, emotive vocals unsurprisingly front and centre of all 11 tracks, we sashay from moody balladeering to smoky jazz bar grooves by way of West End worthy showtunes. &#8216;25&#8217; is not an experimental voyage of the kind Fleetwood Mac made with 1979's 'Tusk' or a try at fashionable hip-hop strain trap. It's not even home to a single curveball. For her core fanbase this probably comes as sweet relief.

The closest &#8216;25&#8217; gets to springing a surprise is on &#8216;Send My Love (To Your New Lover)&#8217;. With pop professor Max Martin (who&#8217;s scored hits for everyone from Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys to Katy Perry and Taylor Swift) on perky production duties, she comes over like a softcore MIA, bouncing along a Femfreshed dancehall chorus, wishing her ex and their new squeeze well and sounding like she&#8217;s having a right laugh.

But from then on, it&#8217;s an unapologetic return to &#8216;Rolling In The Deep&#8217; style high drama. Swathed in candle-lit mysticism and with a whisper of Gregorian chanting, &#8216;I Miss You&#8217; sees Adele going full Florence (unsurprisingly given the co-writing and production credit for Paul Epworth, who has previous with both Flo and Adele). Over velvety doom-pop she urges a lover to &#8220;kiss me back to life&#8221;. &#8216;River Lea&#8217; continues in the same ballsy vein, a strutting, modern gospel Danger Mouse production that references her Tottenham roots. &#8216;Water Under The Bridge&#8217; brings yet more bombast, with Adele belting out another dramatic diary entry to her ex.

Vocally, however, she impresses most when she brings thing down a couple of notches. Against gently plucked acoustic guitar on &#8216;Million Years Ago&#8217; she channels the hushed sensuality of 1950s jazz pinup Julie London with gloriously intimate results.

Yet you just can&#8217;t shake the feeling that the whole thing is just far too safe. You can&#8217;t blame team Adele for following a formula that has so far resulted in 30 million album sales &#8211; but here&#8217;s to a little more innovation on &#8216;29&#8217;.

Read more at http://www.nme.com/reviews/adele/16341#cMvD8kE6k0MsMAwo.99
 
Haha. Love these reviews. Feel like I've read them before (when Bad came out).
Speaking of Julie London, Adele ought to do a covers album. Lots of good torch songs out there.
 
Speaking of Julie London, Adele ought to do a covers album. Lots of good torch songs out there.

Can't tell if you're serious or making a reference to what Branca suggested to MJ for his followup to Thriller :p

Should be able to give the album a listen tonight. I bought it as a gift for my father who loves Adele :)
 
Last edited:
And so it begins... :smilerolleyes:


Unlike Michael Jackson, who spent his career chasing the success of Thriller, Adele has avoided the temptation to make a "grand statement" with her follow-up.


Instead, she sounds relaxed, conversational and inspired, on a set of songs that come straight from the heart.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34833655


Why the need for jabs at MJ? What the heck Adele has to do with MJ? Considering Bad is one of the few studio catalog albums that still sells after 28 years, I'd say it was not bad follow-up to Thriller. Let's see if 25 will be all that. No, not now, because it will be hyped like crazy for now, I am sure. But let's come back to it in 15-20 years and how it stood the test of time. Because Bad did. Until then, leave MJ out of it please.


At least MJ was original and ambitious. He always wanted to do better than he did before, just like he wanted to do better after OTW and this is the exact thought that led him to release Thriller. I don't see it as a bad thing, I think an artists has to develop and aim for new accomplishments. I really don't understand how staying in one place and not going out of your safe zone are good things.

Not only MJ continued to achieve great success with every album, he also grew aritstically and not one MJ album sounds like the one before. He was a true visionary and I admire him for that.

I can't say the same about Adele and it's NOT a compliment.
 
Haha. Love these reviews. Feel like I've read them before (when Bad came out).

In Bad's case I don't get it though how it is an attempt at repeating Thriller. The most people can come up with is that they both have a rock song. Supposedly that means the album as a whole is the same formula over again. :smilerolleyes: What is Bad's WBSS? What is Thriller's MITM? What is Bad's PYT? What is Thriller's Smooth Criminal? IMO it is anything but. What I like in MJ is exactly that all of his albums sound different.

Re. Bad reviews what I remember was that most were focused on the album cover and MJ's looks. And then how he is supposedly not credible to play a ghetto guy in Bad. Stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top