MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

Hopefully the estate realizes some of his legacy depends on those numbers and would be at least curious to know after the release of Purple Rain DELUXE (which I never thought we would see the light of day).

Does that really matter to today's audience? When Lil Wayne & Drake have broken the Hot 100 record by Elvis Presley in a way shorter amount of time or Psy getting 3 billion views on Youtube for Gangnam Style, and that's just the official video and not the views on the other postings of the song.

When they are counting (and honoring) Youtube views, someone should DEFINITELY be counting Prince's physical album sales. I think that says WAY more.

Cinny said:

mynameisnotsusan said:

Counting double albums as 2 copies is kind of a cheat to me. Billy Joel - Greatest Hits? Garth Brooks - Double Live? Really?

I agree. How many albums from the CD era counted as ONE copy turned into "double albums" in this renewed vinyl reissue era?

Come to think of it, 2Pac's All Eyez On Me was counted as a double album because it was on two disks, but it is a triple album on vinyl! Time to adjust everyone's numbers!

Cinny said:

When they are counting (and honoring) Youtube views, someone should DEFINITELY be counting Prince's physical album sales. I think that says WAY more.

Well, why not figure out the sales of artists in the 78s era before albums were invented and there was a RIAA? How much did Al Jolson or whoever sell during their time? In a lot of cases those kinds of sales statistics weren't kept by the labels in that era (or are lost), and would be impossible to track now. How about record clubs or cutouts which weren't generally counted. There's also street tapes/bootlegs and people today who sell burned copies of albums or black market sales in Russia/China/South Africa/Abu Dhabi where some western music wasn't officially allowed to be sold at one time. In some cases, labels have been known to buy a lot of copies of their own records to spike the charts or pay record stores to say a particular record sold more or less than it really did to Billboard/Cashbox. There's really no way to really figure out what someone sold. At best they're only going to count the offical copies, not the other stuff like K-Tel or Pickwick Records versions or older artists who release re-recordings of their music on budget labels. Didn't Prince himself say once that he had no idea of what Purple Rain sold, only what Warner Brothers told him.

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

When they are counting (and honoring) Youtube views, someone should DEFINITELY be counting Prince's physical album sales. I think that says WAY more.

Well, why not figure out the sales of artists in the 78s era before albums were invented and there was a RIAA? How much did Al Jolson or whoever sell during their time? In a lot of cases those kinds of sales statistics weren't kept by the labels in that era (or are lost), and would be impossible to track now. How about record clubs or cutouts which weren't generally counted. There's also street tapes/bootlegs and people today who sell burned copies of albums or black market sales in Russia/China/South Africa/Abu Dhabi where some western music wasn't officially allowed to be sold at one time. In some cases, labels have been known to buy a lot of copies of their own records to spike the charts or pay record stores to say a particular record sold more or less than it really did to Billboard/Cashbox. There's really no way to really figure out what someone sold. At best they're only going to count the offical copies, not the other stuff like K-Tel or Pickwick Records versions or older artists who release re-recordings of their music on budget labels. Didn't Prince himself say once that he had no idea of what Purple Rain sold, only what Warner Brothers told him.

It would be cool to know those numbers for sure, but all I'm asking is for what was sold since 1996 (or whenever last they counted), of PURPLE RAIN. Surely since sales reports, royalties, and publishing are what they are today, these numbers can be drummed up. Physical sales only since he wasn't on streaming platforms until like 2015, so they should be able to search SoundScan. I don't expect "Mammy" 78s to be tallied up!

MickyDolenz said:

spacedolphin said:

Probably a surprise now is Nevermind, I realise it's huge internationally and rightfully so but I was always under the impression it sold a lot more in the states.

I think the idea that Nirvana and grunge changed what was popular (at least in the US) is something the rock media wrote in retrospect, it didn't really happen. It didn't kill "hair metal". Bon Jovi, Van Hagar, and a few others were still popular in the mid 1990s. One of the most popular albums of 1992 was Totally Krossed Out by Kris Kross and Jump was #1 on the pop singles charts 8 or 9 weeks. Ace Of Base and other dance gruops were really popular in the US after grunge hit. So was Hootie & The Blowfish, Alanis Morrisette, & Counting Crows. It was really hip hop that changed mainstream music (and fashion). The popularity of grunge didn't last long, but hip hop is still popular today. Here is the Top 50 albums on the Billboard 200 for June 12, 1993, which is around 2 years after Nevermind. The only acts that could be related to Nirvana are Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, & maybe Primus. Michael Jackson's Dangerous is at 45 and Nirvana's Nevermind is at 181. So Nirvana might have replaced Dangerous at #1, but in the long run Mike was selling better.

Yep. Nirvana was #1 in January 11, 1992, then was pushed off by Garth Brooks and Hammer.

While Nirvana slipped to #4, Dangerous went to #2 behind Brooks.

then a week later....

Dangerous, Nevermind, Ropin' The Wind, and Too Legit 2 Quit stayed in the top 10 for awhile.

[Edited 5/28/18 6:58am]

bboy87 said:

Yep. Nirvana was #1 in January 11, 1992, then was pushed off by Garth Brooks and Hammer.

While Nirvana slipped to #4, Dangerous went to #2 behind Brooks

Dangerous, Nevermind, Ropin' The Wind, and Too Legit 2 Quit stayed in the top 10 for awhile.

I just remember this coverage talking about Nirvana/grunge knocked Mike off #1. Something was going to eventually replace it anyway. It was presented like Nirvana made people stop buying all of the other types of music and the upper parts of the charts changed to all grunge.

Cinny said:

Come to think of it, 2Pac's All Eyez On Me was counted as a double album because it was on two disks, but it is a triple album on vinyl!

I think that when CDs became the main sellers, they primarily go off of that, not vinyl. Currently Billboard has a separate chart for records, probably because not everything is released on that or cassettes. Some albums have been released on cassette all this time and even a few on 8-track. The most well known modern 8-track is a Cheap Trick album from a few years ago. Cassettes are what my mom buys to this day through a mail order catalog. She's never owned a CD and does not know how to use a CD player.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

That narrative of "grunge taking over music" still exists today. If one did their research they would see that in 1992, R&B, new jack swing, hip hop, country and even non-grunge rock, particularly metal, were the dominant genres on the charts following Nevermind's release.

Maybe so, but Kenny G & Yanni are a long way from grunge, music & fashion wise But that's like people writing that 1960s music was all about The Beatles & British Invasion, Motown, & Woodstock psychedelia. When records for movie & Broadway musicals (The Sound Of Music, Fiddler On The Roof) and acts like Percy Faith, Johnny Mathis, & Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass were really popular. Lawrence Welk & Andy Williams had TV shows in the 1960s and that was when there were only 3 networks and maybe a couple of local channels on the UHF dial. Louis Armstrong went #1 with Hello Dolly after the Fab 4 made it big. The rock press tends to write about what they think is cool, and mostly ignore the rest, put it down, or like it in some ironic way as "guilty pleasures" or something.

MickyDolenz said:

Tpmp93 said:

In 1966 and 1967, it was reported that Herb Alpert and the Monkees respectively outsold the Beatles in US album sales. Of course, you'd likely not hear about today. Also, in 1965, Hermans Hermit was a bigger singles act in the US than the Beatles.

I knew about The Monkees outselling both The Beatles & Rolling Stones at the time. Didn't know about Herman's Hermits or Herb Alpert selling more than The Beatles. A TV sitcom every week is publicity that other acts didn't have and the show won an Emmy. The show was also broadcast in countries outside of the USA. At best, other acts appeared on American Bandstand, Ed Sullivan, Shindig & other such music/variety shows. It wasn't constant. The style of the show is likely an influence on the later MTV videos, and probably why MTV had a marathon of the show. The Beatles sold more in the decades after they broke up than they did while together, probably because during that time acts in general released 2 or 3 albums a year, and in some cases non-album singles. The Beatles had more albums in the US during the 1960s than in Europe, because Capitol Records chopped up the British albums, then there were a few albums released by Vee Jay Records. That's what that "Butcher Babies" album cover was about. In a 2 year period during the 1960s, James Brown released 8-10 albums, don't remember the exact number. Milking an album for a longer period of time mainly started in the 1970s. The 70s is when albums started getting blockbuster sales like Fleetwood Mac & Boston.

MotownSubdivision said:

DonRants said:

Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson. The three artist who ruled my generation...are only there once each. So although they had tremendous cultural impact...other artist were outselling them massively...in the USA, at least.

I am also surprised by the absence of QUeen, Nirvana and David Bowie....three bands/artists with massive cultural impact but not the sales.

Please correct me if my obeservations are wrong...would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. What surprises you, etc.

Years ago, I remember listening to a marketer talk about America and he said that we are not who we project or think we are. He said one way you see the true America is what folks will actually pay for versus what the media tells us we are or shows us to be. This chart is showing me the wisdom of his words.

While many other artists and groups have sold more individual albums, many still rank much lower in terms of total albums sold. According to Wikipedia, Michael and Madonna rank in at #3 and #4 respectively behind only The Beatles and Elvis, both having sold 300 million+ albums worldwide. US-only, they rank much lower, however with Madonna peaking at 85 million while Michael hit 104. What I found most interesting was that both have individually sold more than The Beatles in the UK. They top out at 18 million while Michael stands at 28 and Madonna at 29. When you break down the lump sum of artist's sales, it really is pretty intriguing. [Edited 5/6/18 18:20pm]

I suspect that is partly because the album did not become a major commercial/artistic format until the latter part of their career. Their singles sales would have been tremendous.

MickyDolenz said:

206Michelle said:

Garth Brooks, as far as I know, has not really crossed over to mainstream, but he just sold really well among Country listeners.

Nah, Garth couldn't have had 7 diamond albums with only the country audience. If that was the case, then George Jones, Willie Nelson, Loretta Lynn, The Judds, Merle Haggard, George Strait, Randy Travis, Barbara Mandrell, etc would have done so before him. Dolly Parton didn't really have huge selling albums even though she was famous with the mainstream. Dolly had a few pop hits, but her singles were mostly big country hits only. Dolly's mainstream popularity was more as a personality on TV variety shows and movies, not so much as an album seller, or getting Top 40 airplay. Sort of like Charo, who plays flamenco guitar. Kenny Rogers was the first to have multi-platinum crossover success in the late 1970s, and Alabama to a lesser extent in the early 1980s. There's country acts who had singles that became pop hits before and during Kenny's crossover era, but their albums did not sell like Kenny's did. Kenny was so popular at the time, they made movies based on his hit The Gambler. It helped that the country/trucker image was popular during that period with Urban Cowboy, Dukes Of Hazzard, BJ & The Bear, Hee Haw, Dallas, CB radios, Smokey & The Bandit, etc. It's like if there was a music craze, John Tavolta had a movie about it. Like 50's nostalgia (Grease), disco (Saturday Night Fever), & country (Urban Cowboy).

Garth Brooks was big enough in the late 90s to attract hundreds of thousands of people to a free concert- in NYC's Central Park !

leecaldon said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Tpmp93 said:

If anything, skits and interludes built into the idea of "the album", and usually a concept. Respect for nineteen-nineties double albums now!!

RODSERLING said:

Don t be fooled. Some of these albums are double albums, So they account for twice the Real volume of sales (the Wall, the white album, many greatest Hits...). . Many albums are also undercertified. Purple Rain at 13*P is à joke. It should be at 16*P by now. It is in fact one of the 15 best selling album of all time in the US

Well, that's what I'm saying. If any of these so-called double albums had come out in the CD era, the sales would be half.

Not Thriller though! Best damn maxi-EP of all time.

leecaldon said:

MotownSubdivision said:

DonRants said: While many other artists and groups have sold more individual albums, many still rank much lower in terms of total albums sold. According to Wikipedia, Michael and Madonna rank in at #3 and #4 respectively behind only The Beatles and Elvis, both having sold 300 million+ albums worldwide. US-only, they rank much lower, however with Madonna peaking at 85 million while Michael hit 104. What I found most interesting was that both have individually sold more than The Beatles in the UK. They top out at 18 million while Michael stands at 28 and Madonna at 29. When you break down the lump sum of artist's sales, it really is pretty intriguing. [Edited 5/6/18 18:20pm]

I suspect that is partly because the album did not become a major commercial/artistic format until the latter part of their career. Their singles sales would have been tremendous.

The Beatles are the biggest selling act in the UK, acorrding to the below article, but that was in 2012 though. I hope they havn't since combined digital sales but anyway...

https://www.hollywoodrepo...ime-386373

"The Beatles is the biggest selling groups of all time in the U.K. occupying the top spot after racking up a whopping 22.1 million in combined sales, according to the Official Charts Company...."

thesexofit said: