I actually have her last album in my digital music collection, and listened to a couple of tracks. This is everything that is wrong with the 'pop/rock' genre today. My initial response to her when I heard that debut song "Pieces of Me" was that it was harmless and singalong (like Avril's "Complicated") but there is something so irritating, so nauseating in this albums' attempt to stake its' claim as a genuine rock album, that I just cant take it seriously. Or her seriously.

Can someone please tell me how this woman has managed to debut BOTH her albums at #1 on the Billboard Top 200 Album Chart??

And just like Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, ten years from now, people will forget they ever bought her album, and the used bin will be filled with her CD's in the bargain bin.

Perhaps, but she seems MASSIVELY popular and the numbers shes selling seems much more than what the teen queens of the 80s could have possibly touched

Like a fart in the wind.

Shouldn't this thread been made two years ago? I haven't heard of anything Ashlee Simpson has done recently.

13 year olds? Isn't that the demographic for listeners of anything on the Billboard Top 200?

According to the info I can find, her first cd has sold around 3 million copies. Her 2nd release has sold around 900,000. Hardly MASSIVELY popular.

From what I can see Debbie Gibson's first 2 releases were certified triple platinum and her third release was certified gold. As for Tiffany, her first cd has sold 4.1 million. The follow-up sold around 1 million.

Plus, and I could be mistaken, but I think that kids today spend a lot more money whether it be their own or their parents. As it turns out, kids don't have the best taste in..well...c'mon they eat boogers. Yet they still manage to control mommy and daddy's pocket book from time to time.

What are you arguing here?

Triple Platinum is 3 million copies. You already conceded Simpson's first sold 3 million, as did Gibson's first. Par.

Simpson's second was also platinum, more than Gibson's third (Gold).

I'm just stating that Simpson is not MASSIVELY popular like the OP said. He said that "the numbers shes selling seems much more than what the teen queens of the 80s could have possibly touched". I was just proving that they did indeed see similar, if not better, numbers.

Ah, gotcha.

Really we should all be embarrassed for talking about this anyway. (Kidding...)

I think her first album was a success largely due to the MTV reality show she had before/during its release, which was a lot of free publicity. Plus her sister was at the peak of her fame around that time as well.

I completely agree that I hate when they try to market these pop-rock acts as serious rock artists, or claim they 'write their own material' when they are actually surrounding them with professional songwriters who hold their hand through the whole process and flesh out their ideas for them.

Well, I guess they figure they can get in with the ugly sister, to get to the hot one?

As with most talentless "celebs" these days she's famous for being famous and having a famous sister. Oh, how I long for the days when you needed a little thing called talent to get work in Hollywood.

Cottington?

i think she is relevent in the music business, she is still very young and has a fanbase that will support her future album.

I wasn't around when that guy was posting but looking through the archives, I'd suggest they are one and the same. Same type of topics posted and the whole nine. Talking about Tiffany, Debbie Gibson, Sean Lennon etc.

A non-talent I should say. But yes she's hot,yes.

"Those Were the Days..."

The word "talent" is no longer relevant in todays Hollywood. Unless you count driving your car to nightclubs and drinking yourself stupid, than making an appearance on TMZ, a "talent".

Long were the days of the Rat Pack. Now Paris, Britney and Lohan are the people who are defined as "celebs".

It really makes me sick.

No.

Absolutely, and I think you're being generous putting the median age as high as 13. Pop music is sold to children. Always has been, always will be. If you're over 21 and you still rate an artist based on their sales figures, you've got some maturing to do (at least musically).

Err, I dont think pop music is "sold to children", and that it "always will be". I think the term "Popular music" indicates whether a track or album is popular across ALL demographics. What you're saying would only be true if the Billboard Hot 100 and Top 200 Albums chart ONLY counted purchases made by children, or households with children in them. I think its a very generalized statement that cant possibly be true. For example, The Beatles is obviously pop music, but everyone from 5-90 listens to it.

No The Beatles are oldies. They were pop music in the 60's. They were marketed for teenagers just like pop music at the time. Teenagers of course grow up. Most people that are adults still like the music they grew up with.

Musically relevant? Not really. From a business standpoint, probably. I think someone else said something similar.

actually, I think Ashlee's career started declining as soon as the SNL controversy, that completely shot the "I'm not a Britney, I am an artist" act to hell and that's when her debut album and singles started falling down the chart. At this point, if she dropped a new cd, I doubt it'd do more than a couple hundred thousand, her teenies have moved on/grown up (whichever came first)