This reminds me of the great byron and 2the9 and icenine debates that would end up going nowhere but were a fascinating case study on the individuals engaging in the debates. :lol;

sosgemini said:

This reminds me of the great byron and 2the9 and icenine debates that would end up going nowhere but were a fascinating case study on the individuals engaging in the debates. :lol;

icenine. I remember him. Or maybe his avatar.

unique said:

ok, so what is your point?

Someone asked and I responded. That's not really rocket science.

unique said:

with those record clubs you still ultimately had to pay for the discs, and usually pay more for them than you would in a store, and you usually got to choose what titles you wanted, so either people opted to join the clubs because they wanted an eagles cd or they choose it themselves

What you are saying makes, absolutely, no logical sense. So, instead of going to the store to buy the Eagles GH cd, they opted to join a club and get it there instead? LOLWAT? Why? Why would they do that? Why would more people opt to get the Eagles GH CD from a music club than anywhere else? Does that not seem a tad bit strange to you? No? I did bold the part where the RIAA included certs for FREE cds that the music clubs gave as incentives. That, to me, seems a bit more reasonable then what you are proposing.

While the Eagles weren't the only ones who benefitted from it, they were the ones that saw the biggest jump in shipments. So instead of getting the CD from the store people would rather spend all that money to get it from a club, possibly for free?

All joking aside, doesn't that seem odd to you? At all? I mean, no offence to Eagles fans, but if I had the choice between Led Zep's IV and the Eagles GH, I would take Led Zep, hands down. You do make a good point about their Unplugged performance, but yet, soundscan reflected no particular rush, by anyone, to buy their albums, even at that time.

unique said:

the problem with this thread is too many people are quick to post about a subject they know fuck all about. why go on about a band like the eagles if you know fuck all about them?

Did you not just do the same exact thing w/MJ earlier on in this thread? You still have yet to prove anything of what you said beforehand. I'm still looking forward to you supplying any actual facts with you claims. =3

unique said:

what i'm saying is that by being on thriller, you have to include those sales, and if thriller sold so many copies,...

LOLWAT?! If Thriller was Paul McCartney's project then I would agree with you, but it's not so your point is moot. Also, Paul McCartney's solo projects do not get counted with the Beatles, because he is his own solo project, just as the Jacksons are their own group, separate from Michael.

unique said:

and by loser, i meant in the respect of losing the discussion. if you consider that a personal insult, then that's a personal issue you need to resolve yourself. i took you for someone who could bring value to the conversation, rather than someone who relied on making insults when their point was lost, so i must be a wanker for making such a stupid assumption and thinking that a confessed MJ fanatic could participate in a mature conversation. i'll maRRk my card and make sure i don't do such a fucking retarded thing again

ROFLMAO!!!!! Oh wow. How can you say that, especially after all the nonsense that you contributed to this thread?

unique said:

no, i'm not saying that at all, and i'm going to give you the credit for knowing that's not what i mean

OK, so you're not saying that you would attribute sales of Thriller to Paul McCartney.

unique said:

what i'm saying is that by being on thriller, you have to include those sales, and if thriller sold so many copies, then that puts him streets ahead of MJ as the beatles, wings and solo albums of macca sold more than all other records that MJ appeared on

So you are saying that you would attribute sales of Thriller to Paul McCartney?

I wasn't seriously suggesting that MJ be given credit for Beatles sales, any more than McCartney should be given credit for all Thriller sales when he contributed to one song on it. I was really just trying to point out how ludicrous it is.

(and in the interests of both accuracy and pedantry you have not explicitly stated that McCartney should be credited with the relevant percentage of Thriller sales based on his contribution, but rather that all Thriller sales should be attributed to him).

Now that I think about it, as this topic is about album sales, my suggestion, daft and all as it is, has merit. After all, album sales aren't really of importance (relatively speaking) to anybody other than those who receive the royalties.

Anyway, I don't know why you feel it so important to attribute Thriller to McCartney, I don't think there's any doubt that his collective sales are streets ahead of MJ's, and would still be streets ahead without the appearance on Thriller.

And this just made me laugh:

unique said:

owning publishing rights has fuck all to do with anything, it's an entirely different situation, and one that few but shareholders give a shit about

When it comes to music sales, publishing is everything.

Unholyalliance said:

unique said:

ok, so what is your point?

Someone asked and I responded. That's not really rocket science.

LOLWAT?! If Thriller was Paul McCartney's project then I would agree with you, but it's not so your point is moot. Also, Paul McCartney's solo projects do not get counted with the Beatles, because he is his own solo project, just as the Jacksons are their own group, separate from Michael.

what i'm saying is that if you count all the sales of records than any individual appeared on, then macca trumps all, as you would have to include the sales of thriller and other collabs in addition to the beatles huge selling works, plus the not insubstantial sales of wings and maccas solo work. it's clear maccas solo work isn't counted with the beatles, i'm saying if you took that and added on his other sales it skyrockets his total. macca still gets royalties for those records, regardless of what name is on the front cover

people joined the music clubs as they offered people "free" cds if they joined. the ones i recall were along the lines of offering 5 or 6 free cds that you choose from a list of about 50 albums and you pay only £8.95 or something, making you think that you buy 1 and get the rest free, and misleading you into thinking that other cds will be around £8.95. you get the discs on appraisal, so you get the catalogue and cd and see the real prices that are higher than in the stores, you have the option to send it back, but most people don't bother so they have to either pick a cd each month and pay for it, or they send you the choice of the month and bill you for it if you don't make your own choice

thus whilst the initial discs may have been "free", people choose what discs they wanted out of the "free" ones. they essentially paid for those discs by paying more for future discs. it's a similar practice to getting a "free" mobile phone when entering a contract at £40 a month for 18 months. the money you pay each month for airtime pays for the handset

why did people join the clubs? simply because they thought they were getting a good deal with the "free" cds

why did the eagles and led zep sales increase so much during that period? as i mentioned before, the dates seem to coincide with releases of led zep remasters, the eagles reunion tour etc. those were big popular high selling bands in the 70s and 80s, it's not like they weren't selling records previously and the sales suddenly appeared because people were forced into accepting cds they didn't want. people choose to join the clubs, they choose the discs they wanted, but i think that only accounts for a relatively small amount of cd increase for the specific bands, and the main reason for spike is for other reasons. if you look into the history of the artists and bands around the periods of the spikes you will find out information that points to why sales would increase. the eagles first reunion was a big deal with mtv unplugged and a massive tour. led zep also did an "unleaded" unplugged, these helped introduce the bands to a younger audience and make them seem "cool" instead of the rock dinosaurs that younger audiences may have thought of them

now if those acts had an increase of sales due to the music clubs, then so would all the other acts, including MJ, so everyone is on the same playing field. the thing is, those acts aren't near the top of the sales list, so i'm not sure why people are making such a fuss. there's other artists that many people might not have heard of that have sold shitloads of records, like peter frampton and john martyn, just because you don't know an artist doesn't mean the sales figures are iffy. they probably all are iffy, but they are on the same playing field