On May 9, 4:13Â pm, Raja
gmail.com> wrote:> On May 9, 9:05Â am, Jeff
sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On May 9, 7:54Â am, Raja
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On May 9, 4:38Â am, Jeff
sbcglobal.net> wrote:>
>>>> On May 8, 8:33Â pm, zepflo...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>>> On May 8, 8:23Â pm, poisoned rose
definitive.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> Presumably, it involved once again just counting on
>>>>>>>> his fingers how many times the bands appeared on such-and-such weblists,
>>>>>>>> without taking into account WHERE they rank on the lists.
>
>>>>>>> How many top 10 albums did Fleetwood Mac have in the UK and US?
>>>>>>> The Eagles were even worse.
>
>>>>>> Thank you for clarifying my speculation.
>
>>>>>> So, a 19-times-platinum album represents no more "success" in your book
>>>>>> than a gold one.
>
>>>>>> Nothing more needs to be said.
>
>>>>> Sorry, I am not talking sales figures here. Sales figures are well
>>>>> know. Anyone can check RIAA and print out the top 7 bands from the 60s
>>>>> and 70s. Careful, it might have Journey.
>
>>>>>>>>> Pull up top albums sales *worldwide,* based on *sales,* not chart
>>>>>>>>> position, and you'll be able to see the the raja boy made most of his
>>>>>>>>> stuff up.
>
>>>>>>>> It's clear that he tipped the scales toward his usual UK faves by
>>>>>>>> stressing US and UK chart success equally, without taking into account
>>>>>>>> that the US is a much larger market.
>
>>>>>>> doesnt matter. I am thinking of global bands. Bands who are successful
>>>>>>> here but flop in UK dont count and vice versa.
>
>>>>>> You're not making an argument of any merit. You're simply stacking the
>>>>>> deck again.
>
>>>>>> If an album "successfully" sells 10 million in the States and
>>>>>> "unsuccessfully" sells 50,000 in the UK, it's still more successful than
>>>>>> an album which "successfully" sold 2 million in the States and
>>>>>> "successfully" sold 300,000 in the UK. It's simple math.
>
>>>>> Again you are going back to sales figures. I am talking about chart
>>>>> success. I am talking about how bands were in demand enough to scale
>>>>> the charts.
>
>>>> So, you're saying that sales figures don't show what bands were in
>>>> demand???- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>> I am saying sales figures are all wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> How can sales figures be wrong?- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> How can they be right? You think people were counting how many copies
> Please Please Me sold in 1963 in each and every corner of the world?- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes, record corporations kept inventory on records in order to
calcuate how well sales are doing in the market. Hell, they knew that
by 1960 industry sales were down .5 percent from the year before, and
in '63 down less than 2 percent.
You're suggesting that data such as this is frequently fudged and
inaccurate, you are quite mistaken. We even have a count of how well
the Beatles singles and albums did in Canada, United States, Sweden,
England, Denmark, Japan, all over northern and southern Europe and
Russia. How else could singles like "She Loves You' reach gold with
inaccurate sales data?
