|
|
Post by fabtastique on May 3, 2016 12:52:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on May 3, 2016 14:52:35 GMT -5
I believe they are considered a group and if you look them up their certs will be there. I have seen them. I think since 2001, "Get Closer" is definitely platinum though some things I read say it is already. The last official count was 900 something thousand. I would think Canciones probably is over the 3 mil mark or close to it. I wonder how close HLAW is to 3 mil? I wonder if Trio II is platinum by now? If in print would think that WW could be close to Gold as it sold over 300,000 (maybe 4?). By what date that count was not sure. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 3, 2016 17:48:57 GMT -5
I would suspect her album sales total is somewhere between fifty and one hundred million worldwide, though unless Warner/Elektra/Asylum does the kind of accounting they ought to (given that Linda was their most successful female artist, and maybe their #1 single artist, period) there's no way to know for sure. I believe that every album of hers, studio or compilation, that was released between 1973 and 1989 sold 500,000 copies each (meaning Gold sale status); and of course, she had eight straight albums go Platinum (one million copies minimum sold) during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on May 3, 2016 18:14:09 GMT -5
Yes, Erik if it a reg. issue studio album or compilation that correct. I wonder how many went from Gold to Platinum, etc. since 2001. Also, I wonder how many post- 1989 albums have sold enough for Gold status. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 3, 2016 22:15:26 GMT -5
From the RIAA's website:
Title Highest Award Certification Date Category Format Genre
GREATEST HITS 7X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None
SIMPLE DREAMS 3X Multi-Platinum November 27, 1990 SOLO ALBUM None
WHAT'S NEW 3X Multi-Platinum May 28, 1993 SOLO ALBUM None
CRY LIKE A RAINSTORM HOWL LIKE THE WIND 3X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None
LIVING IN THE U.S.A. 2X Multi-Platinum December 12, 1997 SOLO ALBUM None
CANCIONES DE MI PADRE 2X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None
HEART LIKE A WHEEL 2X Multi-Platinum November 27, 1991 SOLO ALBUM None
LUSH LIFE Platinum January 17, 1985 SOLO ALBUM None
MAD LOVE Platinum May 12, 1980 SOLO ALBUM None
PRISONER IN DISGUISE Platinum September 13, 1989 SOLO ALBUM None
FOR SENTIMENTAL REASONS Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None
GREATEST HITS VOL. II Platinum September 13, 1989 SOLO ALBUM None
HASTEN DOWN THE WIND Platinum October 28, 1976 SOLO ALBUM None
ROUND MIDNIGHT WITH NELSON RIDDLE & HIS ORCHESTRA Gold November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None
DON'T CRY NOW Gold August 25, 1975 SOLO ALBUM None
GET CLOSER Gold November 23, 1982 SOLO ALBUM None
A RETROSPECTIVE Gold November 13, 1978 SOLO ALBUM None
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 3, 2016 22:28:29 GMT -5
Linda hasn't had new certifications likely because she is no longer signed to the Elektra-Asylum, much less Warners. She wasn't a Warners artist as Warners and Elektra/Asylum were different labels under the same corporate umbrella. The A in WEA didn't stand for Asylum but for Atlantic. Linda has sold in excess of 45 million albums in the US, according to some accounts but I've also seen some accounts that say more than 50 million. The certification process doesn't cost a lot of money but they would need to locate the sales books, which is actually what's audited to determine if an album meets the gold, platinum or diamond status (500,000 for gold; 1,000,000 for platinum; 10,000,000 for diamond). As Linda is no longer signed to Elektra/Asylum (or to Warners or to Atlantic), the corporate suits there likely have no interests in further certifications. Of course, it's also possible she is owed royalties and that is why they haven't had her sales updated. Fifteen to twenty million is a lot of records and if she didn't receive her royalties on those records, she'd have a case that they owed her and owed her with interest for non-payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by brent1981 on Sept 22, 2016 2:17:32 GMT -5
From the RIAA's website: Title Highest Award Certification Date Category Format Genre GREATEST HITS 7X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None SIMPLE DREAMS 3X Multi-Platinum November 27, 1990 SOLO ALBUM None WHAT'S NEW 3X Multi-Platinum May 28, 1993 SOLO ALBUM None CRY LIKE A RAINSTORM HOWL LIKE THE WIND 3X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None LIVING IN THE U.S.A. 2X Multi-Platinum December 12, 1997 SOLO ALBUM None CANCIONES DE MI PADRE 2X Multi-Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None HEART LIKE A WHEEL 2X Multi-Platinum November 27, 1991 SOLO ALBUM None LUSH LIFE Platinum January 17, 1985 SOLO ALBUM None MAD LOVE Platinum May 12, 1980 SOLO ALBUM None PRISONER IN DISGUISE Platinum September 13, 1989 SOLO ALBUM None FOR SENTIMENTAL REASONS Platinum November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None GREATEST HITS VOL. II Platinum September 13, 1989 SOLO ALBUM None HASTEN DOWN THE WIND Platinum October 28, 1976 SOLO ALBUM None ROUND MIDNIGHT WITH NELSON RIDDLE & HIS ORCHESTRA Gold November 15, 2001 SOLO ALBUM None DON'T CRY NOW Gold August 25, 1975 SOLO ALBUM None GET CLOSER Gold November 23, 1982 SOLO ALBUM None A RETROSPECTIVE Gold November 13, 1978 SOLO ALBUM None In another thread I stated that Billboard in 1978 listed Simple Dreams as a triple platinum LP. This means the certification in 1990 listed above is for the LP's initial sales. Assuming of course that she never sold another million of that album between 1978 and 1990. I find it hard to believe she didn't since that album I believe has never been out of print (or has it?). If this is the case, it might mean the majority of her certifications are for initial sales and don't include any data post original release. I guess it is impossible to know. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 22, 2016 9:43:54 GMT -5
In another thread I stated that Billboard in 1978 listed Simple Dreams as a triple platinum LP. This means the certification in 1990 listed above is for the LP's initial sales. Assuming of course that she never sold another million of that album between 1978 and 1990. I find it hard to believe she didn't since that album I believe has never been out of print (or has it?). If this is the case, it might mean the majority of her certifications are for initial sales and don't include any data post original release. I guess it is impossible to know. [/quote] Billboard may have reported "Simple Dreams" was a triple platinum LP in 1978 but that didn't mean the album had been certified as triple platinum at the time by the RIAA. The RIAA's website used to provide more information, such as the dates an album reach a new certification level. The date given for "Simple Dreams" triple platinum certification was as you see it, in 1990 and not 1978. Billboard can say an album was triple platinum but they are not the RIAA and they do not speak for the RIAA. |
|
|
|
Post by brent1981 on Sept 22, 2016 23:34:45 GMT -5
Billboard may have reported "Simple Dreams" was a triple platinum LP in 1978 but that didn't mean the album had been certified as triple platinum at the time by the RIAA. The RIAA's website used to provide more information, such as the dates an album reach a new certification level. The date given for "Simple Dreams" triple platinum certification was as you see it, in 1990 and not 1978. Billboard can say an album was triple platinum but they are not the RIAA and they do not speak for the RIAA. Sorry I wasn't very clear, what I was trying to point out was, just because RIAA certified the album triple platinum in 1990 doesn't mean the sales figures given by the studio pertain to sales between 1977 and 1990. So I was trying to say that Asylum have most likely not submitted sales info for Simple Dreams post 1978. An album is only certified when a record company provide information and pay a fee. Meaning Billboard were really saying Simple Dreams sold 3 Million copies in 1978 (in fact that may have been their wording and I stated triple platinum erroneously), which was the information I was trying to get across, since Asylum didn't submit figures until 1990 it is very likely that the album has sold more since 1978. This was in reference to people saying her RIAA stats have not been updated since 2001, this does not mean Asylum have submitted details up to and including 2001. It could mean all RIAA certs are based on data Asylum has given them from the 70's. RIAA does not give information about what period the sales occurred, that is some artists/groups can be certified 14, 15, 16, 17 times platinum all on the same day 30 years after the actual sales occurred. Thus Linda's sales and platinum status could be far bigger than it is shown on the website. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 23, 2016 2:39:23 GMT -5
I wonder why Asylum would have done later certifications for other acts like the Eagles and not Linda? I kept seeing their greatest hits keep rising in sales until it became the best selling album of all time which I believe is certified.
|
|
|
|
Post by brent1981 on Sept 23, 2016 5:28:23 GMT -5
I wonder why Asylum would have done later certifications for other acts like the Eagles and not Linda? I kept seeing their greatest hits keep rising in sales until it became the best selling album of all time which I believe is certified. That is probably exactly why, because it is such a high selling album. WB have done the same with Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, they are still submitting for certifications for that album, but there are other artists they have not been updated since the 80's. Even Madonna, one of WB's biggest artists has certifications outstanding and some that needed to be upgraded. Her single Like a Virgin went GOLD in 1984 (and was awarded GOLD by RIAA in 1984) meaning it sold 1 Million copies, however her cert is for 500,000 and WB have not upgraded the single to Platinum and most likely won't. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 23, 2016 10:26:26 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't very clear, what I was trying to point out was, just because RIAA certified the album triple platinum in 1990 doesn't mean the sales figures given by the studio pertain to sales between 1977 and 1990. So I was trying to say that Asylum have most likely not submitted sales info for Simple Dreams post 1978. An album is only certified when a record company provide information and pay a fee. Meaning Billboard were really saying Simple Dreams sold 3 Million copies in 1978 (in fact that may have been their wording and I stated triple platinum erroneously), which was the information I was trying to get across, since Asylum didn't submit figures until 1990 it is very likely that the album has sold more since 1978. This was in reference to people saying her RIAA stats have not been updated since 2001, this does not mean Asylum have submitted details up to and including 2001. It could mean all RIAA certs are based on data Asylum has given them from the 70's. RIAA does not give information about what period the sales occurred, that is some artists/groups can be certified 14, 15, 16, 17 times platinum all on the same day 30 years after the actual sales occurred. Thus Linda's sales and platinum status could be far bigger than it is shown on the website. Apologies as well as my last comment on my post about Billboard came across as very terse and it shouldn't have. Over the years, I have learned not to place too much trust in Billboard's claims or their charts, which can be misleading because they don't include every store that sells recordings and they miss some sales completely. "Long Road Out of Eden" was a number one album for the Eagles in Billboard, yet it shouldn't have been because the Eagles cut a deal with Wal Mart to sell their albums exclusively. Wal Mart did not and does not report their sales to Billboard but Billboard worked out some kind of exception where the Eagles album managed to achieve the number one spot. Likewise, they reported the Bee Gees' last live album "One Night Only" as only a modest seller - Billboard, I believe, indicated it got no higher than 53, but they somehow missed a lot of sales as the album was certified platinum. The video variations of "One Night Only" have also been certified by the RIAA as having sold 5 x platinum or five million copies. (And yes, the RIAA will certify video sales on DVD or Blu-Ray. A disc is a disc.) The RIAA in their certification process audits the sales books, which isn't sales per se but orders from the vendors to determine the number of copies ordered by chains and mom and pop stores. It's possible "Simple Dreams" had pre-existing orders totaling three million copies based on Linda's past sales performance. The more successful an artist is, the more likely a vendor is to order more copies of the next album. But, it would still depend on when the record company submitted the books for the auditing process for the album to receive gold and/or platinum certification. Some record companies get the certification right away while others wait a little before submitting their books. That may be due in part to the fact they have to locate all of their sales books to submit for certification. It's cheaper that way as each new certification requires a new fee. If they can't locate all of the books, they may keep looking but go with what they have. I believe Peter Asher said at one time Linda's true US sales total was 45,000,000. But, that was several years ago and it's conceivable her total could be higher but as to why Elektra-Asylum doesn't submit their books for additional certifications, well again, it's either going to be a case of they can't locate the books to submit them for further certifications or they're not interested in further certifications on Linda because she's no longer signed to the label. Why spend money? It's also possible they may discover they owe her unpaid royalties, which again, if royalties are owed, they would have to pay with interest. Interest accumulating from when they should've paid her originally. If Linda was owed, say, $40 million in 1990 and not paid that, and a court tagged an 18% interest charge against Asylum for not paying her in 1990 and dated it back to that time, Asylum could owe Linda a substantial chunk of change for the omission - $233 million. And that's not including possible punitive damages for failure to pay. That's why record companies need to pay the royalties in a timely fashion as otherwise, they could be put out of business rather quickly. And that may also explain why record companies try to stick artists for everything associated with the production of a recording, including recording costs, manufacture, distribution and buy backs. Record companies are barracudas. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 23, 2016 10:52:43 GMT -5
I wonder why Asylum would have done later certifications for other acts like the Eagles and not Linda? I kept seeing their greatest hits keep rising in sales until it became the best selling album of all time which I believe is certified. I think it's now back down to number two, in behind Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album. It's sort of like a contest between the two record companies, each wanting their artist to hold down the number one position. You can bet Asylum will be submitting new claims for the Eagles' "Greatest Hits" to either tie with "Thriller" or pull ahead somehow. It's also like the contest between Garth Brooks and Elvis Presley. Garth is now ahead of Elvis, yet again, but only by half a million. Sony/RCA was supposed to have submitted their books on Elvis in 2012 or 2013 which would've taken his total to 150 million. If the RIAA created a lower award for sales of under 500,000, RCA reportedly has enough Elvis titles that not only would've knocked Garth Brooks out of the running but also taken the number one spot from the Beatles. RCA has claimed US sales total 432 million and it's hard not to believe them as they don't have to pay royalties to Elvis' estate on many of the recordings because of the 1973 royalties deal with Parker that gave them the rights to some 711 songs Elvis had recorded up to that time. But, to be honest, I don't think the RIAA should regard the Eagles' original "Greatest Hits" as having sold 26 million copies or whatever the total is now. The original album was a single disc and many of the certifications have been for a two-disc cd version, which in effect makes it a different album. The two shouldn't be combined. The original album should be credited for what it sold originally and the two-disc version should be credited for what it's sold. I recall the original album sold more than ten million copies. How many did it sell on vinyl before conversion to cd? I'd almost be willing to bet there's some politics behind the scenes to treat the double disc as the same original disc. The price points were also different: $7.98 for the original album on vinyl and $30.98 I believe for the two disc set. That also makes it two different albums. And also, because it's a double album, each disc counts as each having sold however many millions - which could also mean the album has only sold 13,000,000 but counts as 26,000,000 under RIAA rules. |
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Sept 23, 2016 14:55:00 GMT -5
That new rule I think is kind of bunk to me. If so, then Linda's " 'Round Midnight" would be platinum automatically since it was certified Gold. Could be platinum by now anyway but not officially as of now. Same is the case for "A Retrospective." Any others? Am thinking oh no lol eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 23, 2016 16:02:10 GMT -5
That new rule I think is kind of bunk to me. If so, then Linda's " 'Round Midnight" would be platinum automatically since it was certified Gold. Could be platinum by now anyway but not officially as of now. Same is the case for "A Retrospective." Any others? Am thinking oh no lol eddiejinnj It's not exactly a new rule. It's been around since the 70s but it can also be confusing. The old standard in 1978 for an album to be certified gold was that it had to sell 500,000 copies. But, the way the RIAA does it, I think, is the 500,000 for gold is divided by the number of discs. Two discs means it only has to sell 250,000. Three discs, roughly 166,667. And so on. A single in those days had to sell a million copies to earn a gold record. In the older days, an album had to sell a million dollars' worth of albums based on the suggested retail price less a dollar for distribution. Before the RIAA set the gold standard in stone at 500,000 copies, selling enough to qualify for a gold record would've meant selling around 200,803 copies based on an SRP of $5.98 or 167,225 based on an SRP of $6.98, which would've been late 1960s to the RIAA's rule change, and again minus a dollar for distribution off those price points. Setting the gold standard based on the suggested retail price wasn't a good idea as prices kept rising, meaning an artist could sell less and less for a gold album. Ironically, the RIAA's rule essentially is going back before the time when an album had to sell 500,000 copies, period. The set in stone rule that an album had to sell 500,000 copies should mean a double or triple or four (or however many discs) has to sell 500,000 copies and not divided up by the number of discs that make up the release. It's dishonest and disingenuous And speaking of platinum, the RIAA's criteria in 1978 when they started the platinum award for albums was an album had to sell a million copies. And same as gold, two albums sold as a unit counted for double the sales. It should not be counted as two separate albums. Platinum sales should be set in stone as well. A two disc set has to sell one million copies to earn a platinum disc, two million to earn twice platinum and so on. Setting the platinum and gold and diamond standards in stone would result in some adjustments on the totals you see for some of the artists - those that have quite a few two-discs (or more) sets. That would help keep things honest instead of the standard being used for bragging rights by an artist or their record company. (I didn't mention the RIAA's diamond award, which means an artist has to sell ten million albums but it's probably subject to the above craziness in which something like two discs could be credited for having sold ten million on the basis of having sold five million.) |
|
|
|
Post by brent1981 on Sept 23, 2016 17:00:57 GMT -5
Apologies as well as my last comment on my post about Billboard came across as very terse and it shouldn't have. Over the years, I have learned not to place too much trust in Billboard's claims or their charts, which can be misleading because they don't include every store that sells recordings and they miss some sales completely. "Long Road Out of Eden" was a number one album for the Eagles in Billboard, yet it shouldn't have been because the Eagles cut a deal with Wal Mart to sell their albums exclusively. Wal Mart did not and does not report their sales to Billboard but Billboard worked out some kind of exception where the Eagles album managed to achieve the number one spot. Likewise, they reported the Bee Gees' last live album "One Night Only" as only a modest seller - Billboard, I believe, indicated it got no higher than 53, but they somehow missed a lot of sales as the album was certified platinum. The video variations of "One Night Only" have also been certified by the RIAA as having sold 5 x platinum or five million copies. (And yes, the RIAA will certify video sales on DVD or Blu-Ray. A disc is a disc.) The RIAA in their certification process audits the sales books, which isn't sales per se but orders from the vendors to determine the number of copies ordered by chains and mom and pop stores. It's possible "Simple Dreams" had pre-existing orders totaling three million copies based on Linda's past sales performance. The more successful an artist is, the more likely a vendor is to order more copies of the next album. But, it would still depend on when the record company submitted the books for the auditing process for the album to receive gold and/or platinum certification. Some record companies get the certification right away while others wait a little before submitting their books. That may be due in part to the fact they have to locate all of their sales books to submit for certification. It's cheaper that way as each new certification requires a new fee. If they can't locate all of the books, they may keep looking but go with what they have. I believe Peter Asher said at one time Linda's true US sales total was 45,000,000. But, that was several years ago and it's conceivable her total could be higher but as to why Elektra-Asylum doesn't submit their books for additional certifications, well again, it's either going to be a case of they can't locate the books to submit them for further certifications or they're not interested in further certifications on Linda because she's no longer signed to the label. Why spend money? It's also possible they may discover they owe her unpaid royalties, which again, if royalties are owed, they would have to pay with interest. Interest accumulating from when they should've paid her originally. If Linda was owed, say, $40 million in 1990 and not paid that, and a court tagged an 18% interest charge against Asylum for not paying her in 1990 and dated it back to that time, Asylum could owe Linda a substantial chunk of change for the omission - $233 million. And that's not including possible punitive damages for failure to pay. That's why record companies need to pay the royalties in a timely fashion as otherwise, they could be put out of business rather quickly. And that may also explain why record companies try to stick artists for everything associated with the production of a recording, including recording costs, manufacture, distribution and buy backs. Record companies are barracudas. No worries at all. Yeah for sure Billboard are not a bastion of accuracy. It did seem odd to me that Linda would only manage platinum for her albums though. I am inclined to believe the 3 Million in sales simply because between the mid 70's about 75/76 up to 1979, record sales skyrocketed. Every artist was selling pretty high numbers. This was the period Rumours, Hotel California and Saturday Night Fever sold tens of millions of copies and all hit the highest selling albums of all time list. It makes sense Linda as one of the most popular solo female singers would be making sales far greater than 1 Million during her albums initial release. I am inclined to believe she averaged around 3 Million in sales for each albums initial release, at least in the 70's and probably for What's New and Cry Like a Rainstorm. With lower sales being 1 - 2 Million at the time. I know I have no basis for this, but I am sure Asylum have only submitted sales data for initial sales of her albums and in some cases haven't even submitted all of it. So 50 Million sales in the US seems plausible. Although I had no idea RIAA based certifications on shipments as well as sales. That changes things, as I assumed it was solely based on sales. The other thing Billboard used to do was change the ratio of Airplay and Sales needed to chart. This could be changed at whim and the ratio has never been made public. Meaning a song could hit #1 based on small sales and large airplay or it could peak at #10 based on the same data. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 23, 2016 20:44:51 GMT -5
No worries at all. Yeah for sure Billboard are not a bastion of accuracy. It did seem odd to me that Linda would only manage platinum for her albums though. I am inclined to believe the 3 Million in sales simply because between the mid 70's about 75/76 up to 1979, record sales skyrocketed. Every artist was selling pretty high numbers. This was the period Rumours, Hotel California and Saturday Night Fever sold tens of millions of copies and all hit the highest selling albums of all time list.
Odd thing about the Saturday Night Fever album: at the height of its popularity, it was reportedly selling a million to two million copies a week. It was a massive hit. I can't remember if it was Billboard or some other paper, but it was claimed the album sold 35,000,000 units in the US alone. The RIAA only credits the album as selling 11 million. It's conceivable the Bee Gees' record company, RSO, exaggerated the sales a bit. But, it's also possible RSO never submitted all of their books for the audits. There was a lot of animosity and jealousy directed at the Bee Gees because they had been so successful with just five songs. Not counting their songs (and the covers by Yvonne Elliman and the Tavares on two of those five songs), there was nothing else on the soundtrack that would've been a driver for selling 11 million or 35 million. The soundtrack was mostly recent non-hits by other artists and music by composer David Shire. When the Gibb brothers' catalog was held by Polydor in the 90s, it was said the SNF soundtrack had exceeded 100 million copies worldwide. Incredible and remarkable if true.
It makes sense Linda as one of the most popular solo female singers would be making sales far greater than 1 Million during her albums initial release. I am inclined to believe she averaged around 3 Million in sales for each albums initial release, at least in the 70's and probably for What's New and Cry Like a Rainstorm. With lower sales being 1 - 2 Million at the time.
I know I have no basis for this, but I am sure Asylum have only submitted sales data for initial sales of her albums and in some cases haven't even submitted all of it. So 50 Million sales in the US seems plausible.
One thing about the RIAA awards and it's intentional, is no one knows the true sales figure. When an artist is awarded a gold record, it's for 500,000 copies sold, platinum - 1,000,000 copies sold and diamond - if it gets that far - for 10,000,000 copies sold. No award is given for albums selling less than 500,000 - so an album could be off that gold standard by just one copy, selling 499,999 and it's not recognized in any shape or form.
Same for albums between 500,000 and 1,000,000. And album awarded a gold record would still be denied a platinum award if was just one album shy of the platinum status. And again, after the platinum/million status, it will be eligible for another gold record at the 1.5 million mark but nothing between a million and 1.5 million and nothing between 1.5 million and 2 million.
Personally, I think the RIAA should create an award for any album that has sold 200,000 or more copies, up to 499,999. Or the exact sales figure should be given. It's not going to take anything away from a gold or platinum status just to tell how many copies have sold and how many copies are needed to reach the next level.
Although I had no idea RIAA based certifications on shipments as well as sales. That changes things, as I assumed it was solely based on sales.
And what a dirty little secret that one is for most people. But, some of us who were around in the 60s and 70s were suspicious when an album debuted in Billboard at number one and it hadn't even been released to the stores to put on their shelves. Fans couldn't pre-order albums from the stores. Some of the disk jockeys, including Casey Kasem, informed listeners albums debuting at number one were based on shipments. But, the books the RIAA looks at are orders from the vendors. I'm not sure how they could've accounted for actual sales in the stores, since an album may sit on store shelves a year or two before being deleted or unsold copies returned to the manufacturer. From the books, they can tell when a vendor orders more copies but once they were released by the manufacturer to the distributor and the distributor to the stores, they couldn't tell you who sold what.
Billboard has Soundscan, which to me is something the RIAA should've had in the stores - all of the stores, and not Billboard. That would've done away with the need for auditing the sales books. And it could've made the record companies more honest as to how many records - singles or albums - an artist sold and whether they were eligible for a gold or platinum record.
Sony/RCA can't get Elvis certified for more than 20 albums because they can't find the books to prove they achieved platinum status. Most of the albums were soundtrack albums to Elvis' movies. I keep wondering if the reason for that was there were unpaid royalties owed Elvis at the time? Some doubt the number of records sold claimed by RCA on Elvis but some of the last few platinum records awarded Elvis are not what you expect. RCA released ten low priced budget albums on Elvis that were ineligible for awards of any kind because of their price point ($2.49). The RIAA changed its stance on those albums so they were eligible for awards. All ten budget albums are platinum.
If a soundscan system had been available in the 60s or early 70s, the auditing of the books would've been unnecessary and all parties concerned would've known how many copies were sold. As it was, the scan/bar code didn't arrive until the end of the 70s but most of the record companies didn't start bar coding records for scan until 1980.
The other thing Billboard used to do was change the ratio of Airplay and Sales needed to chart. This could be changed at whim and the ratio has never been made public. Meaning a song could hit #1 based on small sales and large airplay or it could peak at #10 based on the same data.
Billboards's Top 100 (Pop) Chart was based on sales and radio airplay. A record is awarded points that are regarded the same as sales each time the record is played, the number of points determined by the size of the market. Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Chicago, New York and any city with a population of a million or more give 100 points to the record. Again, for each time the record or disc was played. The points decreased by 5 points for each drop in the population until it reached 5 points, which represented a market of 50,000 people or less. Regarding airplay the same as a sale was a questionable practice, one of several questionable practices Billboard had.
Several records that should've been a number one based on true sales alone were denied the status because another record had more airplay. And Billboard wasn't above ignoring the rule when it was inconvenient in preventing a record from being number one. "Which Way You Goin' Billy" by the Poppy Family sold more records, was on the charts longer and had more radio airplay than the number one record at the time when the Poppy Family should've had the number one record. That record was the final 45 by the Beatles, "The Long and Winding Road." Billboard never offered a reason as to why a record that should've been number one was kept out of the spot in favor of the Beatles' last record.
Course, the last record was a sad moment but giving the Beatles the number one place one last time wasn't going to cause them to regroup. A further irony was that Cashbox, which based its charts on sales alone, also gave the number one to the Beatles, even though the Poppy Family outsold the Beatles. But, what was destroying one's credibility when a record deserved to be number one, even if it shouldn't have been a number one?
|
|
|
|
Post by MokyWI on Sept 24, 2016 20:20:28 GMT -5
Trisha told her and Garth's Fresno audience last night that Garth was just awarded his seventh "Diamond Certification", which is an award for selling ten million of one album. Garth Brooks has had seven albums sell ten million copies each. That is more than any artist/band in history. Trisha Yearwood does a once a month Facebook stream call Coffee Talk w/Trisha. That is where I got the info from.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 24, 2016 21:16:18 GMT -5
Trisha told her and Garth's Fresno audience last night that Garth was just awarded his seventh "Diamond Certification", which is an award for selling ten million of one album. Garth Brooks has had seven albums sell ten million copies each. That is more than any artist/band in history. Trisha Yearwood does a once a month Facebook stream call Coffee Talk w/Trisha. That is where I got the info from. Such depressing and distressing news. That the antichrist of music should be rewarded with yet another diamond! Let it be known, if you can't tell already that I am no fan of Garth "Pudge Balding" Brooks - methinks Trisha needs to be deprogrammed. I do not know what she saw in him. In all seriousness, I was looking at Garth's totals on the RIAA and they don't have that information loaded on their site yet. There were two titles that were multi-platinum at 9 million copies each, so it's probably going to be one of those albums, possible the "Ultimate Hits" album which was certified 9 x platinum this past June. That would take Garth's total to 138 million at a minimum, although I do not believe he has sold any further than that. And of Garth's other diamond albums, I do not know exactly how many were "double" albums, meaning an album credited as selling 10 million actually sold 5 million. Most of Garth's other certifications are ten years past or older. Cheers to Garth but I wish he'd go away.  |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Sept 24, 2016 22:19:14 GMT -5
Quote sliderocker:
Well, that's why a lot of other people have called him "Garth Vader", and why I will never refer to Trisha as "Mrs. Garth Brooks".
As to what Trisha saw in this proverbial 800-pound gorilla of modern country music, it was probably an inroad to a Nashville recording contract; after all, she had met him in 1989, as he was starting to catch on. But I have the feeling that the artistic price she paid for having the fixation on the Garthmeister probably included, among other things, the opportunity to record a duet with Linda. She lost that one...forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Sept 24, 2016 22:46:33 GMT -5
Wow, I hope none of our fans/members here are pudgy or balding. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Name calling is quite mature. NOT. What a clever nickname "Garth Vadar." NOT. Such mean-spiritedness. I am not proud to be a member of this group at this present time. I am not a fan of Garth but he is another human being. Also, it is insulting to Trisha to say that one of her reasons to be involved with a person who would become her husband (though she married 2 other people before Garth so I would say she was not fixated on him) as a way of getting a recording contract is insulting to her. He wasn't an 800 pound Gorilla in 1989. Nobody forced people to buy his records. If I didn't enjoy discussing Linda; her music and legacy, I would just quit being a member. Quite disappointing. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by fabtastique on Sept 25, 2016 0:33:09 GMT -5
No accounting for taste...
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 25, 2016 4:17:07 GMT -5
Maybe Garth and Trisha are in love? Physical beauty is over rated and not the best reason to partner with another for a lasting relationship. They appear to be soul mates to me, whatever that means. Smell and humor are pretty important too. I just listened to one of his songs for the first time on youtube and it wasn't bad. It was quite good. I recently said on another post that I didn't understand that with talent being almost equal between people how one becomes the popular one and the other doesn't. I think love might be like that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by fabtastique on Sept 25, 2016 8:46:40 GMT -5
I was talking about musical taste - his music is pretty dire
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Sept 25, 2016 10:19:36 GMT -5
Life is perception. A lot of people like his music. I personally know the most popular hits but that's about it. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 25, 2016 11:13:04 GMT -5
Wow, I hope none of our fans/members here are pudgy or balding. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Name calling is quite mature. NOT. What a clever nickname "Garth Vadar." NOT. Such mean-spiritedness. I am not proud to be a member of this group at this present time. I am not a fan of Garth but he is another human being. Also, it is insulting to Trisha to say that one of her reasons to be involved with a person who would become her husband (though she married 2 other people before Garth so I would say she was not fixated on him) as a way of getting a recording contract is insulting to her. He wasn't an 800 pound Gorilla in 1989. Nobody forced people to buy his records. If I didn't enjoy discussing Linda; her music and legacy, I would just quit being a member. Quite disappointing. eddiejinnj Eddie, my apologies for my joke reference to Garth Brooks as "Pudge Balding." That name was in and of itself a joke on what some critics had written describing Brooks as pudgy and balding and not understanding how he could be so successful. Despite my dislike of Brooks, I understood quite well how come he was so successful: that talent doesn't depend on one's looks. I guess I should've included some explanation when I made the reference. But, I have referred to Brooks as "Pudge Balding" since the late 90s when I first read those critical reviews and it was not meant to be mean-spirited. If anyone else was offended, I apologize to them as well. I'm overweight myself and some might call me pudgy but I have a very thick skin and a dark sense of humor that I could come back with a stinger of an insult but it's rarely come to that. Most who try to push my button end up walking away because I blow them and their insults off. As for balding, no, I'm not that but some are bald by choice rather than by no choice. And also, do you know there are people whose last name actually is Balding? Would anyone who is so socially correct be so bold and crass as to suggest that people with that last name change it because it might be offensive to others? We've been made so uptight by the socially (politically) correct that it's impossible to talk to others without tripping over ourselves not to say something offensive. But, social correctness is offensive to me because although someone may mean well, in a nation of 325 million, they do not speak for everyone, yet they force their morals on everyone else because they somehow have a platform by which they can complain. As for Trisha, as I recall she already had a record contract and hits before she married Garth, who was married at the time he met Trisha. So, she didn't need Garth to get a record contract. If she did, having Garth might have been more of a handicap because Garth has burned quite a few bridges in Nashville. And he's done that from the beginning. He was talking retirement after his first album and continuously threatened to retire after each new album. He demanded his artist royalties be upped before he recorded his second album and that he be paid the new royalty for the first album. That wasn't a bad move on Garth's part, especially given how record companies routinely cheat their artists. There are people in Nashville who will not work with him and don't even want his name mentioned in their presence. So, Garth doesn't play their game and in Nashville, that should be the kiss of death for any artist. It might have been too, if that first album hadn't been so successful. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Sept 25, 2016 12:08:09 GMT -5
I should clarify about Garth Brooks being referred to as "Garth Vader": This was not a nickname that I bestowed on him, but one that a lot of the "old timers" in Nashville (pre-G.B.) gave. The feeling here was that, yes, Brooks made country music so staggeringly huge and popular in the 1990s, but he also bought a very corporate approach to the genre, along with stage shows that resembled to an uncomfortable degree the arena/stadium spectacle approach that rock took during the 1980s, so that, to many, it became much less about the music and much more about the money, about needing to bring a lot of bang for audiences who paid hundreds, even thousands, of dollars for tickets (understandable...up to a point). Rightly or wrongly, Garth Brooks got that STAR WARS-inspired moniker attached to him.
As for him and Trisha: I don't want to imply that she "slept her way to the top" with him, but more that he talked about Trisha to the music executvies on Music Row; and in 1990, she got signed to MCA-Nashville on Garth's recommendation. I don't think it was too much different from David Geffen being encouraged by Jackson Browne to "steal" Linda away from Capitol to go to Asylum in 1972.
In terms of Trisha vis-à-vis Linda, yes, I will always maintain that it's one of those lost opportunities that they couldn't get something down in the studio, because Linda is just one of those artists who is a force to be reckoned with on her own, but she also works very well with others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Sept 25, 2016 15:48:35 GMT -5
I bought the first Garth Brooks album because I heard a song on the radio I liked (Much Too Young to Feel This Damn Old) and wanted to hear more from the artist. It was not money wasted. I thought Garth had great promise. Unlike Linda, who got better with each album, I felt he got a little worse, but more popular. He certainly doesn't have a "great voice" but he has had many wonderful songs, and seems to have a good personal reputation.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Sept 25, 2016 16:14:20 GMT -5
Just remember and rightfully so why us fans were so protective of Linda because she had an illness and gained weight from steroids. We all discussed how inappropriate it was and cruel to Linda and her spirit. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 25, 2016 16:58:45 GMT -5
Just remember and rightfully so why us fans were so protective of Linda because she had an illness and gained weight from steroids. We all discussed how inappropriate it was and cruel to Linda and her spirit. eddiejinnj One thing I should've remembered but didn't was my own rule about putting down another artist because that artist might be liked by others and I wouldn't want them dissing the artists I like. It can go both ways. My dislike of Garth got the better of me, but the like and dislike of Garth is something that's more pronounced in Oklahoma. Many here take a lot of pride in Garth's success, even though it's not their success. And to hear Garth supporters talk, Oklahoma never contributed any other major musical performers, even though this state has produced artists like Leon Russell, David Gates, Vince Gill, Reba McEntire, Toby Keith and Blake Shelton among others. The bragging about "our talent" gets old after a while and Garth gets bragged about the most. With seven diamond awards, I guess he deserves to be bragged about. But, I have a question for those who live in or live close to the hot musical hubs like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Miami or any community where an artist or band originated from: are they talked up to an extreme that in your mind is totally ridiculous? Or is the talk - if there is any - what you would call reasonable? |
|
