Forum
Cass, you are completely missing the point. Arguying that more people implies automatically more sales is nonsense. Afro Americans was just one obvious examples, white people include various groups of people listening to very different music too. Popular artists in Houston aren't the same ones that are popular in Seattle nor in Boston. Back in Bing's day, everyone was listening to the same radio station. There may have been only 150-ish million US inhabitants during Elvis' prime, he could get 100 million viewers from 1 TV appearance only, because everyone was looking to the same channel. Now, there is 300+ million people but you are lucky if you can get viewed by 10 million of them. More people means more of everything and ultimately means an incredibly complex picture, way more difficult to dominate. Had Bing started later, he would have got way more challengers on FM waves / way less exposure relatively speaking and his Billboard Charts history would have been much, much, much weaker. You can't transfer his domination, nor the one of Elvis, to later years, that makes no sense at all.
BTW, the example of Drake is disastrous. In terms of EAS, he is absolutely nowhere near the all-time top performers in the US and will be lucky to ever get close.
You have to adjust for population when determining the most successful record sellers. An act that sells 150 million records with a population of 140 million, during their prime, is a better record seller than an act that sells 300 million records with a population of 300 million, during their prime.The Beatles have 275 million certified sales around the world. Elvis has 225 million certified sales around the world. Michael Jackson has about 210 million certified sales around the world. Drake has 160 million certified sales in America alone, and is likely over 200 million around the world. This guy is in his prime, so he is going to become the biggest certified record seller ever. Why? A massive population, not because he is the best record seller . You should throw in movie ticket sales of music acts that made movies to promote their music. Bing sold over 1 billion movie tickets, Elvis sold over 260 million, and the Beatles sold around 25 million . That would have to be included in their musical popularity index.
If we include movie tickets, Celine Dion would get a huge boost considering that she sang for Titanic which grossed more than $2 billion, Beauty and the Beast more than $1 billion dollars , Deadpool more than $700 million, etc.
Celine is the queen of movie theme songs. For her top 10 most streamed songs in Spotify , 7 of them are movie theme songs.
Cass, your claims are just false as I already stated. It's pointless to look at the population without factoring in the competition and promotion channels. There was less people but it was much easier to reach them in the past. The 'why' for Drake has also been answered, he will barely be at the top of singles, because the current market is fully weighted towards singles while in the past it was an album market, which are much more valuable sales. It doesn't make him the highest selling artist ever at all. It's nonsense to require weightings per population and then act as if singles' certifications are worth the same as albums' certifications.
Movie tickets have nothing to do with musical popularity. One may argue it was more of an advantage since it was a massive extra promo in comparison to artists who didn't had that luck / talent. As I already said and for the last time, it's fundamentally wrong to change one parameter (the population) and act as nothing else would have changed (the success, competition, promotion, etc.).
Join the discussion...Your system has a major flaw, it favors album era artists. Single sales in the past were as important as albums sales once were, so don't try and say single sales are not as valuable.
Hi Cass!
Yes, it favors album era artists... that's why the top 3 debuted in 1969 or earlier 😉
You refered multiple times to the word "fact", isn't it a fact that singles were, are and will always be cheaper than albums? They are not as valuable by definition, it isn't a "try" to say that, that's a hard, pure fact.
Join the discussion...Elvis is the only one of the top three who had his prime years in a singles era. When the Beatles ended their American run, albums were nearly half of their sales. Album sales were about 10 percent of Elvis' total sales, during his prime. Michael had his best years in the album era.For many years, singles were the only way you could buy music and that is why you don't say they were less valuable. Without singles there was no music, and that was never the case for the album era. Sure, albums cost more than singles, but you don't penalize an artist that never had a chance of selling albums, until well past his best years.
Join the discussion...Celine was not the star in those movies. Elvis has had his music played in more movies than possibly any other act , but I was not talking about that.
Cass
Drake currently has 148 million US certified singles. An album can have 8-20 songs when you buy one you buy all those songs. When you buy a single you buy 1 song. You simply cannot compare an artist who sells 10 singles to another who sells 10 albums. If you want to argue Drake is close to the top record sellers because he sold 148 million songs (putting aside that he is not selling actual records but digital songs) then take the Beatles's album certifications and multiply them with the number of songs on those albums. Let's see if Drake can compete then. With 20 songs and 12x platinum certification Abbey Road alone beats Drake's all certified singles by 80 million. And that's just one album.
This is why EAS is used to compare overall sales not just single sales and albums sales.
Still, the fact that her song is the movie theme song, she should get the credits too. Elvis music played more in the movies is just part of the movie, not the theme song of the movie. Sales of the titanic album should be hers too.
It is based on how other music associations count music sales. Album sales is different from record sales. Imagine thinking one whole pig is equal to one kilo of pork. Album sales and single sales can't be weighed equally.
Which doesn't say much since MJ released only 12 albums and Elvis's 42. Also why should downloads and streaming be ignored? When you ass everything together MJ is ahead of Elvis.
Join the discussion...If Celine was the star of the movie and was responsible for people watching the movie,than she should get credit. But people did not watch the movie because of her or the song. People watched Bing , Elvis , and Beatle movies, to see Bing , Elvis , and the Beatles .
Join the discussion...Just because there are 10 songs on an album , it still is only one sale. If you want to say their music sales were worth more money, that's fine. Sales and money value are two separate areas.Drake has certified album and single sales, around 160 million in America. His sales are as legit as any Elvis or Beatles sales. Money was spent to buy them,so it is a legit sale. Michael Jackson likely would have the record for total sales value, since it cost more to buy his records,compared with Elvis and the Beatles.
Join the discussion...One album sold and one single sold are the same total of sales. The album cost more but it is still only one person buying it, not 10 or 12. You can say an act made more money on their sales,but you can't make up fake sales totals, because it cost more.
Give it up Cass, your argument is weak and you just been blown out the water on this discussion. Give it up mate!
Join the discussion,it's extreme for female to sell same number of album before 1985, so a album worth much more than three singles, should be at least ten times more, so Barbra is more successful divas for selling ovet 100 million album than other divas who sold less than1 billion record, so Barbra's CSPC should be over 1.4 billion, more than your top100 artist combined
MJD, I'm curious, now that you've done Elvis, is there any other artists that would be remotely as difficult as he was? Or was Elvis the most time consuming?
THank you for all your work.
If you had a way to donate $$$, I'd send some to keep the operation moving.
After all, I've already spent countless hours going over and enjoying your work.
THank you for everything you've done,.............don't let the haters bring you down..........."Groos!"
Join the discussion...Keep dreaming. If anybody honestly thinks population is not a factor, they are badly mistaken..
It really is interesting to see how successful an artist can be releasing songs as singles. I feel like in the streaming era we have entered that this could be the best strategy for artists....put all effort into creating an amazing single and get it exposure on streaming/radio, milk it for all it's worth then move on to the next one.
I personally still love an immersive album that I can just hit play and be transported someone else for 45 min to an hour, but if people aren't spending the money on albums anymore you have to wonder how much longer artists/labels are willing to put in the effort.
Hi Nathan!
I'm reluctant at studiying Nicki because her downloads / ringtones will be a nightmare to compile. That being said, the worst remaining is likely Frank Sinatra. His sales may be even harder to work on than Elvis' sales because his catalog was never audited in full while the one of Elvis is pretty much under control in the US. He also has nearly as many records as Elvis!
It's true that I have put nothing money-wise so far. I really started Chartmasters as an educational place praising accuracy. By then in early 2016, I had a very lucrative job and enjoyed working on it on my free time. I wasn't concerned at all by losing money with it. A year ago or so I gave up my job because what I really wanted to do is work on Chartmasters, that's why I added ads to at least cover hosting costs. I still do not want to ask users for money yet. I may offer services at some point to media, writers, labels, etc, or even users who has a specific query, but asking for money to users for simply visiting the site I still haven't accept that idea at the moment 🙂
I was thinking more of donation instead of subscription. I like your idea of getting into media, etc. I hope you are welcomed in the media like you have been with us!
Hi Kris!
That's very true. We tend to link the technology (here streaming) with the evolution of music formats, but in truth albums would be dying right now still even if it wasn't for the format. Back in the 60s when albums started to be relevant, it was a real entertainment activity. People 'planed' to listen to an album the same way than they would plan to watch a movie. Then you would debrief it with friends the following day. These days are over.
Now there is mainly 3 contexts to listen to music. One is passive listening, in background while we work / study. For that, we want a never-ending playlist, that we don't really listen to, that only creates an ambiance. You need generic sounds, nothing agressive. Drake, Ed Sheeran, etc, that's perfect for that. You won't use Iron Maiden's albums as passive listening music! Then there is social entertainment. At a party or simply while having a drink with friends. It makes no sense to play an artist album on that context, you better use a playlist that everyone at least enjoys a song or another. Then, the last major context for listening to music is transport network. It's the only one where you select your music and mostly listen to it actively, but here the album format in terms of time doesn't fit. Your ride until your work may last 15 minutes or 1:30, but it will rarely be fitting with the length of an album. Plus, even if you are actively seeking for music, the context (a car, a bus, a train or whatever) isn't appropriate to get into an album.
Nowadays, if you have one hour in front of you and look for entertainment, you watch a TV series. Then you talk about the new episode to your friends the following day, as you would have done for a new album 50 years ago. Times changed, not only formats. At the end of the day, albums are just not relevant anymore as per our consumption of music. Playlists are.
