fran.182 Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 24 minutes ago, daveyjones said: i'm confused... this is a thread of you asking about chart sales eight years ago? Yes, that guy (whose estimations are from) also has a good site for worldwide sales, and they are closer to the real thing, but that's not the point. It's not worth the time, but like I was saying if you add the US sales (those are easier to know) with the rounded figures/certifications (those are ok, of course you can trust the British Phonographic Industry, the Australian Recording Industry Association and so on) for the rest of the world, it becomes clear someone made up those numbers. As for the US, you can trust blink's wikipedia, because it directs to Billboard, which takes its figures from Soundscan (responsible for tracking sales over there)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltan Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 The world isn't only the USA, Australia and the UK. Bands sell millions of records in South America and South-East Asia without certifications. Since artists don't sell that much physical copies anymore, streaming became an important addition to the final numbers. Note that sales have never been just the number of albums purchased by the end users. For example, it contained the discounted albums that were bought by a third party distributor for 50 cent each, and no one knows that those copies have ever been sold to customers. Also, in certain countries the industry used to calculate the hypothetic bootleg versions into the sales (the royalties are in the taxes of writable CD's). There are artists who sell physical copies with a coupon to a free digital download: 2 sales at once... And the list goes on... Adding "imaginary" numbers to sales isn't new. No one will ever know the real results, because there's no such thing as "real" in this field. It's all about marketing tricks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 46 minutes ago, Zoltan said: The world isn't only the USA, Australia and the UK. Bands sell millions of records in South America and South-East Asia without certifications. Since artists don't sell that much physical copies anymore, streaming became an important addition to the final numbers. Note that sales have never been just the number of albums purchased by the end users. For example, it contained the discounted albums that were bought by a third party distributor for 50 cent each, and no one knows that those copies have ever been sold to customers. Also, in certain countries the industry used to calculate the hypothetic bootleg versions into the sales (the royalties are in the taxes of writable CD's). There are artists who sell physical copies with a coupon to a free digital download: 2 sales at once... And the list goes on... Adding "imaginary" numbers to sales isn't new. No one will ever know the real results, because there's no such thing as "real" in this field. It's all about marketing tricks. Dang, dang, dang, dang. You got it, man. That's how it works, although I'm not sure about the hypotetic bootleg versions being still added to the final sales count, at least here in Spain, but it was like that not too long ago when the whole internet piracy thing exploded. So yeah, the whole sales thing as a way to measure anything is bullshit (as it is the whole mainstream award thing, but we discussed that like two weeks ago). Means nothing. Also, some interesting point that has not been said: at least, in some countries, the number of copies you have to sell to get a gold record has been dramatically decreased -due to the piracy, they say-, so the artists can achieve gold/platinum albums easier. The reason that's being told can be logical, but as long as the whole process of counting sales is far from being 100% clear and transparent, it turns to be just suspicious. You know, the show must go on, so they have to keep the whole gold/platinum disc circus going on. But hey, don't break anyone's dream about Wonderland. (ALERT LONG SHIT) Going back to the topic, I think the way we can measure the way a band has been really influential, has to be done taking in count other parameters. I don't know exactly how to define them, but I'm sure we have to look for something that is able to trascend the whole industry and speaks by itself to several generations (becoming a cultural thing that makes a footprint which is able to end up touching newer generations of musicians). To put it simple: thinkg about the groundbreaking artists which landed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. At the end, and tastes aside, you can recognize only a few bands/artists which are considered just iconic due to the way they depeloped their music and how that was changing the whole music scene. For example: to lots of people, the real gorundbreaking bands back in the 60s were Beatles, Rolling Stones and Beach Boys, amongst others that came a litle bit later, near the 70s. Yes, sure. But, there wouldn't be Beatles, Rolling Stones or Beach Boys, if artists as Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, or Muddy Waters, amongst others, wouldn't did what they did. All what the Beach Boys, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones did on their first albums was done before by the rock 'n' roll pioneers and blues artists, which were the real groundbreaking ones by incorporating the electricity to their instruments and creating a new sound from the mix of the blues, country, honky tonk and stuf like that. Translated to the whole punkpop scene: To me, the most important band were the Ramones. They took the legacy of rock 'n' roll and took it to aonther different place. No Ramones? No Green Day, no Screeching Weasel, no Descendents, no blink-182... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedo Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Ding ... it's ding. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyjones Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ghost said: Translated to the whole punkpop scene: To me, the most important band were the Ramones. that's why i listed them first 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, daveyjones said: that's why i listed them first I know, mate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, Stevie Friggin' Speedo! said: Ding ... it's ding. It depends on the bell's size! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, Stevie Friggin' Speedo! said: Ding ... it's ding. Hahah shit I spewed my drink 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capsov Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Wonder if we get a release date Tuesday on Kimmel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxelder Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 11 hours ago, fran.182 said: I'd like to add that some of the sales info in blink's wikipedia is ridiculously inflationated. There's no way EOTS sold 15 millions worldwide considering it only sold 4.5 million copies in the US, just like there's no way TOYPAJ reached the 14 million mark when their home country sales are around 2.5 million. If you take into account their certifications in the rest of the world and the size of those markets, it simply doesn't add up. 11 hours ago, daveyjones said: all the citations on their page link to legit sources with regards to record sales. i wrote each and every blink wikipedia page -- or re-wrote it to bring them up to GA status. i'm responsible for all of that. i'm aware the sales figures are exaggerated -- there's absolutely no way they've sold 50 million albums. literally, like two years ago the figure was 35 million, and before that, like 25 million or something. and the US figure is 12 million for sure. 50 million was invented as a marketing tactic as soon as BMG started handling their shit. i knew this well when i put it in the article. dishonest? record labels have been inflating album sales for years. that's why the "list of highest selling albums" page has a "claimed sales" section. but it appears the press just kinda goes with inflated sales, and so do the wikipedia pages as a result. it's dishonest, but that's the game being played for years. any soundscan-sourced billboard figure is there too. i'd be willing to believe EOTS's sales are up there, but TOYPAJ -- no way. i think that was a san diego reader article i cited and idk where the author got that from. writing these wikipedia pages makes you realize how many journalists are just bullshitting it lol i'd love accurate sales figures! but they don't release info like that, unfortunately 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxelder Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 11 hours ago, fran.182 said: Most of those figures came from wikipedia in the first place - I've been following it. Lazy journalism... Trust me, I'm a chart/sales freak and those numbers aren't real. The estimations in the fourth post of this thread are more credible: https://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=54450 i'm also really interested in chart data! that said, i found these random postings once and they seemed fairly reliable. any info? http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/index.php?/topic/112059-simon-garfunkel-paul-simon-kenny-g-and-herb-alpertusa-album-sales/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Well, if you want to have a "realiable" source about album sales, maybe this site can help (taking in count how sales numbers are made up):http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/albums-chart/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxelder Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 14 hours ago, Ghost said: Well, if you want to have a "realiable" source about album sales, maybe this site can help (taking in count how sales numbers are made up):http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/albums-chart/ UK only. publications rarely release actual sales figures, outside of first-week numbers, for anybody but the biggest artists 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topper182 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Looks like Blink will have their second #1 on the alternative charts with SOOHM by the end of this week or early next week. http://kworb.net/radio/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Backing Track Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Booo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 40 minutes ago, topper182 said: Looks like Blink will have their second #1 on the alternative charts with SOOHM by the end of this week or early next week. http://kworb.net/radio/ That's awesome. And they still have the biggest potential hit on deck with Sober imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I always thought offspring were just kind of alright. Good for a listen now and again, but nothing that ever blew me away. A few summers ago they were playing a show near me the pavilion is setup so that people just walking along the sidewalk can actually see the stage (far away of course) and hear the music perfectly. I stopped to watch and listen for about a minute then had the desire to keep walking.. That is kind of how I feel about them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan_ Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I went to a festival back in 2013 which had a pretty amazing lineup that included Metallica and The Offspring. Both bands were playing at the same time and obviously Metallica were on the main stage. I went to see The Offspring play and I was amazed how many people were packed in watching them. People even were climbing up trees and on the roof of the food stands and bathrooms because there was no more room on the grass area. The Offspring had to stop playing and asked everyone to get down so no one would get hurt. It was actually one of the best show I've seen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just reading the name "The Offspring" annoys me. I instantly hear their singer's irritating voice in my head. Terrible band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 They are incredibly mediocre and repeatative and I've loved the shit out of them for years. I still get chills whenever I hear Gone Away. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.