Forum
Hi Analord!
I would say that out of the 4 possible solutions, yours is definitely the most illogical of all. The whole thing is how you define "an album", it's not like every purchase is on par, if that was the case we would mix singles and EPs and albums, we certainly don't do that. Let get into the cases.
1) we consider that 19m persons bought a compilation with tracks from Thriller, Bad, etc., so we put HIStory among compilations, acting as if no new songs were into it. Illogical falls short.
2) we consider that 19m persons bought a fresh new album, putting the only only among studio sets. There, we consider these 19m persons bought no song whatsoever from Thriller, Bad, etc, paid nothing to get them, and their future purchases won't be impacted at all from this compilation. Makes no sense either, goes against the whole CSPC logic.
3) we consider that 9.5m persons bought a compilation, and 9.5m bought a studio album. To me that's the most absurd way to behave as it's like doing 2 errors to avoid doing one, and it has zero real value.
4) we consider that 19m persons bought a compilation and also a studio album, which actually happen to be nothing but the truth.
By the way, you speak about the 'cheap' box sets from Garth Brooks, discrediting them, as if one only needs to price his box at $30 to sell 2m copies of a box made of albums which already sold 10m on average. It's terribly inconsistent from you. Why would you want to deflate these releases because of their price, while your last arguments were this one about HIStory for which you want to ignore half of it simply because they were packaged together, in spite of the fact this release was double priced, and that Elvis outsold Jackson in album units and that was the be-all of sales, the only thing which matters, ignoring the fact that this is true only thanks to the monstruous amount of budget discs he sold, and that he wouldn't even be close without them. You can't consider the price as a key element when it's convenient to you and ignore it the rest of the time.
You were also not concerned with the Beatles' Mono / Stereo boxes being allocated to each album, same with Queen's Platinum Collection, Elvis' similar box sets but also his releases like From Memphis to Vegas / From Vegas to Memphis, which happens to be exactly the same thing as HIStory (one old, one new disc, packaged together at first and available afterwards as stand-alone releases), which have all been treated the same way as HIStory, simply because that's the only logical thing to do once we understand the cannibalization factor.
"4) we consider that 19m persons bought a compilation and also a studio album, which actually happen to be nothing but the truth."
Of course, people bought HIStory because they wanted the new songs and the old songs. You seem to think that 19m persons would've bought it even if it didn't include the old songs ? This is pure speculation, we should assume that people bought an album because of, you know, the content of the album, instead of pretending that MJ released two albums in 1995 that both sold 19m copies...
I mentioned Garth Brooks because I just realized that you're applying the same rule as the RIAA's when it comes to box-sets, i.e. a 2m-selling 10CD box = 20m albums. I disagree with that but it's not that big a deal, you mentioned the Beatles' box-sets but the Beatles are #1 anyway.
Not sure what you mean about Elvis' From Memphis/From Vegas, it was a new live album + a new studio album, but who cares, it sold like 1m copies or something... Also I'm sure you're aware that albums used to be way more expensive before the 80s, so "Elvis sold more because of budget albums", I don't think so.
Buddy, CSPC is just about how popular each album is. The compilations are split between studio albums, each gaining sales equivalent to its popularity. It's totally understandable that the 19M of History is split among the studio albums due to the CD with GH, as people bought the songs from the old albums. Not to mention the very high price that HIStory was sold at the time for being double CD. It sold 19M but could have been a lot more had it been marketed at a standard price. Anyway, I think you are arguing a point that goes completely against the CSPC' ideia.
Technically, it's not, it's how popular it's tracks are, not the actual album.
No it's not "understandable" that HIStory would be the only double album counted twice, and you don't know how much it would've sold without the GH.
Price is irrelevant, as I've said albums were much more expensive before the 80s, do you think that should be considered ? What about the price decrease during the 2000s ? Or MJ waiting five years between albums, his fans must've had more money to spend than others...
Hi Analord!
It seems you want to apply rules depending on how results fit what you would expect, that's not how we set the rules. They must be consistent for all. You say that Elvis' 2-in-1 release sold 1m, we won't do different rules depending on if the album sold 1m or 19m. That the Beatles are "#1 anyway" is irrelevant when we decide how we set up the rules. In the same way, you say "it's not that big a deal" for Garth Brooks, again, what matters is not how results satisfy you, but to set up consistent rules for all.
Sales of compilations are split into studio albums, that's true for everyone. Packages which put together several albums are assigned to each individually, that's also true for everyone.
Hi again Analord!
There are several wrong claims in your message.
Firstly, albums weren't much more expensive before the 80s, they were in the 50s/60s, but prices went down a lot relatively speaking during the 70s already. Secondly, the large majority of Elvis' album sales came after his passing, not before. Thirdly, of course Elvis sold bucketloads of budget albums (his Pickwick/Camden releases are famous, but outside of the US there have been even much more in proportion) and continues to sell a monster amount of budget albums, charting like 3x more budget albums than anyone else in the UK in the last 25 years for example.
Fourthly, no, HIStory is not the only "double album counted twice", every 2-discs albums which combine two distinct records are counted the same way. Fifthly, I don't even see how the gap between albums should impact our calculations of total sales, it seems that for you every reason is good to decrease Jackson's total.
And lastly, you claim that we "don't know" how much products would have sold individually. Actually, we do know that 19m persons bought 19m units of each the compilation and the new studio set. You are the one guessing that if both albums were released apart they would have sold less, and as 19m persons did pay to get both these releases, you are the one who would need to prove that these would have sold less if released individually.
@MJD:
What is your opinion of MidweEk bestselling UK Album Artists?
Music Week
Biggest-selling albums artist of the 21st century in the UK.
1 Robbie Williams (16,674,978),
2 Coldplay (14,734,824),
3 Elvis Presley (13,502,834),
4 Eminem (13,276,742),
5 Westlife (12,907,183),
6 Take That (12,613,279),
7 The Beatles (12,585,043),
8 Adele (12,402,363).
9 Michael Bublé (12,150,504 units), including 10,452,370 physical sales and 1,049,456 digital downloads.
10 Ed Sheeran(11,989,075) with digital downloads (2,208,972) and sales-equivalent streams (3,577,046).
They had Elvis @7.2m in 2012. But #3???? How???
Your thoughts,G?
In The league of David Bowie? You're insane! 🤣 🤣 🤣 Elvis is much higher than him! He sold several folds what Bowie has and he is certainly a lot more popular than Bowie, even more popular than Elton john, led zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, pink floyd, the eagles amd some current artists like Kanye West! I keep saying this generation of people know shit about Elvis and how huge he was and still is!
Only rock fans know about David Bowie but Elvis no matter what music type you're into he is known! Even hip hop rap fans know about Elvis.
So he's "still huge" but "this generation of people know shit about him" ? OK.
I don't think people really appreciate how extraordinary the numbers for Bohemian Rhapsody were. The movie made $911 million dollars world wide. To put that into perspective, they hope Dr Strange in the Multiverse of Madness will make a billion dollars, but it will probably make a little over 900 million. It is much more likely (and expected by the experts) that the new Elvis movie will have Rocket Man (~$250 million world wide) level success or below.
I see Bohemian Rhapsody on my cable TV listings at least once a month. I have yet to see Rocket Man listed on my cable TV listings.
Totally agree. Bohemian Rhapsody is the exception, not the standard to be expected. Elvis is a much older act with totally different music than Queen. That being said, he has a super interesting life story, and the 50s and 60s are a fascinating time in America. I think a modest boost in streaming numbers is a given, but only time will tell how just how well the movie does! I'm personally pretty pumped to see it
