Forum
How can you explain this, the FACT: the Eagles Greatest Hits Soundscan sales from the last 11 Years:
2007, May
5,054,548
2007, November
5,125,000
2007, December 8
5,149,433
2008, January 26
5,199,012
2010, June 6
5,374,694
2010, October 3
5,392,833
2010, November 6
5,395,835
2012, September 1
5,510,310
2012, October 27
5,517,347
2013, March 2
5,537,129
2013, March 16
5,543,596
2013, March 30
5,554,416
2013, June 15
5,585,933
2013, July 13
5,595,541
2014, April
5,690,000
2014, November 1
5,749,765
2016, October 29
6,103,000
2017, January 7
6,124,000
2017, January 14
6,132,000
2017, June 3
6,174,000
2017, August 12
6,194,000
2017, Year End
6,228,000
6,228,000 since 1991 (= 27 Years, = 230.000 sales each year)
1,173,452 from May 2007 to Dezember 2017 (= 128 Months, = 110.000 sales each year)
Hi Brandon!
That's a fact - it scanned 1,2 million since its previous RIAA cert. It doesn't go beyond that though. New sales are only one way of achieving new RIAA certs, the other two being newly eligible sales and previously unaudited units. Nobody stated the album moved 9 million units since 2007. It's a given that it hasn't, which doesn't necessarily mean the new cert isn't legit.
I'm completely bemused by those two most recent Eagles certifications and the sheer scale of the rises. When Warners applied for those huge shipment rises in the 1990's
Eagles - Eagles Greatest Hits: 14m (14/12/93) to 22m (05/06/95)
Eagles - Hotel California: 10m (12/08/94) to 14m (05/06/95)
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV: 11m (18/12/92) to 16m (26/01/96)
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV: 17m (25/11/97) to 21m (15/11/99)
AC/DC - Back In Black: 12m (26/01/96) to 16m (12/11/97)
it seemed a mixture of soundscans, clubs, the allowance of freebies, military bases etc and "found/lost" shipments, was the answer. This time I'm struggling to find the answer, as the addition of physicals, downloads & streams, just does not seem enough to rise them 9m & 10m respectively. Seems like more "found/lost" sales.
That’s not even remotely true. Michael sold well for years and his music is still downloaded and streamed. The difference is the Eagles, and many rock and country artists, lend more to an American audience. Michael made a name for himself as a solo artist when rock music was huge in the ‘70s. Michael’s six adult studios albums outsold the Eagles globally. That’s not counting his childhood solo work with Motown, compilations, or posthumous records. He probably gives them real competition even in the US if you are only looking at studio albums.
Please don’t compare Michael and Madonna. People do that all the time and they aren’t really that similar except they’re both popular and had their biggest moments in the ‘80s. She doesn’t match him in terms of sales or impact or talent in my opinon. But MJ does compete with the Beatles, Elvis, and any other great you want to name in regards to critical acclaim, sales, chart performance, career longevity, and cultural impact.
Michael Jackson and Madonna are definitely comparable. Michael was super2 huge, but he released very few albums. Madonna was not nearly as big as Michael at her peak, but she definitely have more longevity than Michael and she beat all other rock stars except for the Beatles and Elvis. Madonna started her career, far weaker than Michael. But she has catch up with him. Stop trying to discredit her achievement. Let us not even forget the fact that Madonna is still alive and she is the queen of reinvention. Who knows she might have another comeback in the coming years, and who knows she might be able to beat Michael's CSPC one day. The fact is she is still the 4th best selling artist male or female or group, and she easily beat out almost all the rock acts in history. She is has a bigger global appeal than most rock acts, who derived a bigger portion of their sales through the US markets. She is in the same league as MJ.
I wasn’t trying to discredit Madonna. She’s obviously successful; the numbers speak for themselves. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words to say they aren’t comparable, but I stand by the statement that her career doesn’t match his just because she beat others. That’s not an insult. He’s always had a longer reach. What you mentioned about him having fewer albums is exactly my point. His music made a bigger splash and continues to sell. That distinction isn’t just between him and Madonna, it’s him and everyone. That doesn’t take away from her status as the “queen of reinvention.” She might surpass him in sales or CSPC one day because she’s still making music, not because the music had more lasting effects.
Their longevity is also different because he started his career so early. He probably still exceeds her at this point, but her career as an adult making new albums does exceed his because she’s still making music and obviously he’s not. Once again, it was a poor choice of words to say they aren’t comparable, but there are differences. She is the biggest worldwide sensation besides MJ, the Beatles, and Elvis, but there is a big gap between her and them.
If those music club "sales" were in fact free and dirt cheap copies, which is why RIAA didn't include them before 1994 and why SoundScan still doesn't include them, can we call them sales?
But how could they just miss millions of units through repeated certification and suddenly find them?
And why is that happening to Rhino albums? Greatest Hits was certified many times before 2006. Missing 7+ million units doesn't sound too plausible.
Hi Vulcan!
It's not true that all these sales were free/dirt cheap. The subscription offer was ridiculously cheap (often 12 CDs for $1) but then you were forced to buy 2 albums per month during at least 1 year at prices often higher than on regular retailers (as high as $18 per album in the 90s). If you do the maths, at the end of the subscription period that's 36 CDs for 1+15 (to be conservative) * 24 = $361 => $10 per album. Columbia House alone peaked at over $1 billion gross you they obviously haven't made that much money giving away records.
Soundscan doesn't include them again not because of the price but barely because of the technology. They scan bar codes, these codes appear only for products sold on retailers, so not when a record was purchased through direct marketing. These products were also sold directly buy the record club (like Columbia / BMG) instead of the label, they were pressing themselves the copies, which is why the industry used to massively ignore them until 1994. Even when reporting global sales, they often excluded them before that date simply because these sales weren't controlled by them, they were selling licensing agreements rather than units to these clubs.
Because they are an industry, an official organisation financed by all music labels, why would they be biased for one specific artist / label? It's key to understand that artists are paid their royalties as per sales. If Rhino made up these sales and certified these near 20m (combined) sales without grossing a peny, they would still need to pay at least $100 million to band members, producers, etc, of copies that do not even exist. The only possible way is to sign an agreement with everyone involved saying "hey guys, let's invent these sales for marketing purpose, sign these so you agree there no royalties on them" but even that is way too much of a conspiracy theory for me!
Hello MJD and team.
I'm not sure if this has been clarified/investigated yet (I see there has been some discussion in the comments). I was just wondering if the huge increase in the 'Greatest Hits 1971-1975' and 'Hotel California' album certification by the RIAA was considered legitimate by this website and if so how it might affect EAS/ASR for The Eagles?
I'm not a particularly big Eagles fan do I don't have a 'dog in the fight' as it were. Just curious as to what your views/intentions were regarding this is all!?!
Thanks!
