The Beatles :: Charts & Sales History

[blackcat]

Indeed, it does sounds like the Beatles have many many missing sales as well, or at least unaccounted for sales, going by the link you gave me, Ouf!!

No doubt there will be small areas of missing sales Cat, it is simply inconceivable that everything is fully documented and accounted for after well over forty years.

But the bulk of the data, from the type of original contract review papers you have seen on MFG, to frequent quarterly royalty reports through to full blown breakdowns of running totals requested every so often by Head Office, they were all logged and/or retained.

Record keeping is something of a British pastime, but it can also be found in the most unlikely of places. That awful despot Pol Pot required the Khymer Rouge to record everything about their atrocities and who had been 'deleted' in Cambodia during the infamous 'killing fields'.

It is hard to believe they'd retain a record of such incriminating evidence, but apparently they did.

I have said I am not so sure about RCA's protestations about lost paperwork in some cases, but I have no personal experience of their 'facilities'. They will have been poor by most archival standards though.

But I have absolutely no such concerns about the record-keeping of EMI, and to be fair they have never - as far as I know - said they 'know nothing', as Manuel in Fawlty Towers may have proclaimed!

Topicel

These "small" areas of missing sales might make all the difference in a count up to 500 million!

[Topicel]

Hey Topicel.

I think we agree on much. My point was to put the timeline in place and let others discuss the veracity of the figures.

My only knowledge of sales figures is what is published, and by applying some logic I try and come up with some rational figures.

That 400 million singles equivalent figure for Presley in 1976 seems consistent with the trend to that point. I was not aware of the earlier 350 million figure being published.

Those estimates of mine are actually my estimates. When the 1971 GOBR came out with figures for The Beatles of 133 million (74 million singles, 3 million EPs and 56 million albums) representing 416 million units; it was not difficult to come up with the multiplier 6 to fit the equation. I did that in 1972.

Similarly, the figure in the 1976 GOBR of 545 million singles equivalents including 85 million albums; it did not take much algebraic expertise to realise the multiplier 6 did not fit but 5 probably did, factoring in known singles and EP sales. This I had already done in 1977. No great difficulty in that, though I had no idea why the multiplier had changed from 6 to 5.

In those days I used to receive a GBOR as a christmas present each year from an aunt.

Another figure I have just discovered for The Beatles from the 1967 GBOR.

By April 1967 sales of 209,000,000 discs worldwide.
Singles equivalents of course.

Compare that to the October 1967 figure of 206,000,000 singles equivalents in the US (Source : Variety).

Is that consistent?

cheers

Good evening Bobdeb - catching up again slowly, and yes, I'm sure we agree on much. Truth be told, if we could discuss things over a beer or three then I reckon most rational folk on here would agree on much here too.

The fact is we have thoughts in our heads and they don't always translate so well into short (or not so short in my case!) posts. I'm aware that less is sometimes more, but then condensing what I 'know' is also a tough task.

When I was involved with Professor Martland I recall him saying the research was the easy bit, the 'writing up' was the difficult part. Add in a large dose of necessary confidentiality on open forums and things can get fraught.

So I thank you again for putting the timeline you drew up onto the thread. It will always need adding to as both companies were 'at it' in those days. The 350m was from an RCA catalogue I believe, which the company regularly released under the Colonel's instructions to ensure all product was upfront and available for dealers to order. So it is easy to miss something like that as such 'memorabilia' would set you back £30-40 if you want it, and I guess you wouldn't!

Thus it would seem fine for 400m in 1976, but who knows what algebraic (as you put it) or calculus invention they used to get to that total. It really was a free-for-all as I've been at pains to point out since Spring 2009.

Anyway, you've applied good logic in the main and made some pretty rational conclusions. I was a bit unfair about the five times multiplier conclusion however as indeed it had to be something like that as six didn't fit anymore. You weren't to know anymore than I did at the time that six wasn't the industry standard but something Joseph Murrells decided upon. Equally though, Guinness should have been more forthright for such a universally accepted authority on 'records'.

My point about the 'five' thing is more that you have overlooked how it was arrived at, as explained on my MFG site. Now I realise I'm making a rod for my own back here by saying I'm not happy about Ouf quoting my words from there and now saying something to the contrary. A subtle difference - as far as I'm concerned anyway - is Ouf quoted something out of context and generalised, whereas the 545m escapade and how it came about is more specific and also relates to public domain items from Music Week and Billboard so it wasn't quite as confidential. I'm sure most who are the slight bit interested and visit this thread have seen the piece, but if you were being judicious, I thank you.

As for GBOR, it perhaps is an Aunt thing the world over as I too received some editions from my mother's sister! As for the entry in 1967 you've just discovered, it just about confirms exactly what I've been maintaining all along - the London connection between EMI and GBOR.

And no Cat or anyone else, before you start, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy for heaven's sake. It was Bobdeb himself who used that phrase as he pointed out to me a short time back. What I was trying to say then, and I'm saying now, is simply that the location of the two offices made public relations and having a 'chat' about such matters as sales announcements somewhat easier, that's all.

They still didn't do the proper thing and explain to a gullible audience what those early sales numbers actually meant.

Topicel

[blackcat]

Indeed, it does sounds like the Beatles have many many missing sales as well, or at least unaccounted for sales, going by the link you gave me, Ouf!!

No doubt there will be small areas of missing sales Cat, it is simply inconceivable that everything is fully documented and accounted for after well over forty years.

But the bulk of the data, from the type of original contract review papers you have seen on MFG, to frequent quarterly royalty reports through to full blown breakdowns of running totals requested every so often by Head Office, they were all logged and/or retained.

Record keeping is something of a British pastime, but it can also be found in the most unlikely of places. That awful despot Pol Pot required the Khymer Rouge to record everything about their atrocities and who had been 'deleted' in Cambodia during the infamous 'killing fields'.

It is hard to believe they'd retain a record of such incriminating evidence, but apparently they did.

I have said I am not so sure about RCA's protestations about lost paperwork in some cases, but I have no personal experience of their 'facilities'. They will have been poor by most archival standards though.

But I have absolutely no such concerns about the record-keeping of EMI, and to be fair they have never - as far as I know - said they 'know nothing', as Manuel in Fawlty Towers may have proclaimed!

Topicel

Very strange that EMI and every other record company seems to be very good at keeping records, but RCA, for some reason, "will have been poor by most archival standards".

Your opinion couldn't have something to do with the fact that there are all these alledged "missing" Elvis sales, could it.............

[Topicel]

Here's a bit of information in return to you, Ouf, you have probably come across this before, though - info. on French made exports of e.p's. to Belgium:

http://www.yokono.co.uk/collection/beat ... _emi.html##1

In fact, it looks very similiar to the link you gave earlier concerning singles exports.

Must dig out some more data on all these e.p's!!!

(Sounds like train spotting, this!)

Indeed Cat, trainspotting or plane spotting (without the inherent risks ) is indeed where it's at.

The information is out there about the releases, and once again you have managed to come up trumps with what I've been banging on about - exports all over the place.

As I've said, your Kronemyer Data tells you all this, but he's not idle and retired to guide you all like me.

The French branch of EMI were busy manufacturing records for all french-speaking territories and Wallonie is of course an obvious one - as will have been Monaco and Switzerland too as I've mentioned before.

But they'll have been reported to London, so it is a collectors issue knowing about these things and only in a minimal way a sales concern.

Where it could be worth thinking 'out of the box' is with regard to the EP total in the Murrells work that GBOR published in 1971. Or, the actual figure that wasn't redacted on MFG for sales of this format in 65/66.

But I fully understand if a brain freeze overcomes you!

Topicel

[Topicel]

Still going through this link you gave us, Ouf! Certainly some interesting stuff.

Looking at the e.p. section, tons and tons of E.P.s released in Mexico. I guess the Mexicans liked their extended plays!

And one E.P., from the Seargent Pepper album, released in Spain in 1967, the year the album was released. First time I have come across the Pepper album tracks being released on a 45 disc in the same year that the album was released.

Fascinating stuff!

And here we return to Kronemyer indirectly again Cat because while he doesn't deal with EPs there were some albums that Capitol were responsible for that were issued in Mexico that require some consideration.

In other words, did Capitol 'export' to Mexico? And as usual with me, the apostrophes are intended. There are subtle business and accounting ties here too that need clarification I would think.

Personally I couldn't give a fig, but as with all such matters someone will be interested in the ramifications, whatever they may be. Happy digging!

Topicel

[Topicel]

The shear volume of beatles records that were released around the world can be mind boggling to comprehend.I have seen dealers at record shows over the years that deal with imports,and it seems that just about anything and everything has been released on the 45 or EP format in some country.Sales volume?Who knows...

The different pressings and reissues etc. would still be subject to pressing and mechanical fee payments and the running totals known Bigred. The fact that there are many label differences and so on is not a restriction on the reporting of the sales!

As for the scale of all this, if you multiply the sheer volume you refer to many times over you are looking at the Presley conundrum. It isn't meant as anything competitive, it is a fact.

I am always astonished by the complexity of the collector catalogues of all major acts. Even a relatively small set of main releases by the likes of Michael Jackson has turned into a major industry of hundreds of Jackson related releases.

And I'm beginning to imagine Madonna fans are gonna be very busy too keeping track of things if they ever want 'complete' collections!

However, it should always be remembered that all these variations do not necessarily add up to as many sales as one might think.

Topicel

[Topicel]

Topicel, 5 years ago, On Sun Aug 28, 2005, Hanboo found 363 million albums sold by The Beatles.
You found for the year 2010 336 million albums sold.
What are your arguments?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

Here's some Beatles world album sales info I posted on Dotmusic in 2003.
I've updated some figures.

Offical Beatles US/UK releases

Sales in millions
(world sales, RIAA certified level, title, year of releae)

06.0 01.0 Please Please Me (1963)
06.0 00.5 With The Beatles (1963)
09.0 05.0 Meet The Beatles (1964)
02.0 01.4 Introducing The Beatles (1964)
04.0 02.0 Second Album (1964)
11.0 04.0 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
04.0 02.0 Something New (1964)
02.0 00.5 Story Of The Beatles (1964)
06.0 01.0 Beatles For Sale (1964)
05.0 03.0 Beatles '65 (1965)
04.0 02.0 Beatles VI (1965)
10.0 03.0 Help! (1965)
12.0 06.0 Rubber Soul (1965)
04.0 02.0 Yesterday And Today (1966)
12.0 05.0 Revolver (1966)
05.0 00.0 Collection Of Oldies (1966)
32.5 11.0 Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
12.0 06.0 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
06.0 01.0 Yellow Submarine (1968)
18.5 09.5 The Beatles (White Album) (Double) (1968)
29.5 12.0 Abbey Road (1969)
05.0 03.0 Hey Jude (1970)
01.0 01.0 The Early Beatles (1970)
10.0 04.0 Let It Be (1970)
20.0 07.5 1962-1966 (Double) (1973)
21.0 08.0 1967-1970 (Double) (1973)
04.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music (1976)
04.0 01.0 Live At The Hollywood Bowl (1977)
06.0 01.5 Love Songs (Double) (1977)
01.0 00.5 Beatles Rarities (1979)
03.0 00.0 Beatles Ballads-20 Original Tracks (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.1 (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.2 (1980)
01.0 01.0 The Beatles Box (12 LP's) (1981)
02.0 00.5 Reel Music (1982)
05.0 02.0 20 Greatest Hits (1982)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 1 (1988)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 2 (1988)
08.0 02.0 Live At The BBC (Double) (1994)
10.0 04.0 Anthology 1 (Double) (1995)
06.0 02.0 Anthology 2 (Double) (1996)
04.0 01.5 Anthology 3 (Double) (1996)
01.0 00.5 Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
28.0 10.0 1 (2000)
01.5 01.0 Let It Be - Naked (2003)
00.3 00.3 Capitol Box Volume 1 (2004)

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348.3 million
Total US certified: 134.2 million (170 m. counting double albums)

Apart from the UK and US releases, which were released all over the world,
most countries issued their own specific Beatles releases, especially before Apple came into being in 1968.
There are at least 50 albums, which were released by record companies like Capitol Canada, Odeon, Electrola, etc.

These are the most successful ones:

(sales in million, title)

2.0 Beatles in Italy
1.0 The Beatles Nr. 1-5 (1964 Mexican LPs)[/b]
1.0 The Beatles In The Beginning (ca. 1960)
1.0 Live At The Star Club Albums
1.0 Beatles Beat
1.0 20 Golden Hits
0.5 Greatest Hits (1965)
0.5 Beatles First
0.4 Songs, Pictures & Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles
0.3 14 Plus Grands Succes (1965)
0.2 Beatles Tapes

These 12 sold about 10 million. If we take an average of 100,000 for the other 48 albums, we reach a total of about 15 million.

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348 million
Total world sales foreign releases: 15 million

Grand total: 363 million.

Not quite sure what you mean Ouf by "what are your arguments?".

I suggested how 336m could be reached in the extreme in the original piece. HUR, for one, immediately spotted that it was a generous conclusion to say 171m for the last 20 years.

And on my preferred basis of 'one copy sold' then it makes perfect sense to make the comparisons in the way I did with solid US data from Kronemyer and Soundscan as the framework.

It could be much less, but I've got no means of breaking down each album in any precise way otherwise. Have you?

Topicel

[Topicel]

Beatles album sales estimates:

Hanboo : 363 million
MJD : 352 million
Topicel: 336 million

Average : 350 million

cheers

Indeed Bobdeb, but as I've said I see 336m being far too much, so it would be a false average to include my musings.

I've indicated that Hanboo may well have a different view since the Kronemyer Data came to light. We also know MJD said the K information changed nothing for him and you all accept his estimates are satisfactory - like those of his singles - so why worry what I say?

Topicel

[Topicel]

Topicel, 5 years ago, On Sun Aug 28, 2005, Hanboo found 363 million albums sold by The Beatles.
You found for the year 2010 336 million albums sold.
What are your arguments?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

Here's some Beatles world album sales info I posted on Dotmusic in 2003.
I've updated some figures.

Offical Beatles US/UK releases

Sales in millions
(world sales, RIAA certified level, title, year of releae)

06.0 01.0 Please Please Me (1963)
06.0 00.5 With The Beatles (1963)
09.0 05.0 Meet The Beatles (1964)
02.0 01.4 Introducing The Beatles (1964)
04.0 02.0 Second Album (1964)
11.0 04.0 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
04.0 02.0 Something New (1964)
02.0 00.5 Story Of The Beatles (1964)
06.0 01.0 Beatles For Sale (1964)
05.0 03.0 Beatles '65 (1965)
04.0 02.0 Beatles VI (1965)
10.0 03.0 Help! (1965)
12.0 06.0 Rubber Soul (1965)
04.0 02.0 Yesterday And Today (1966)
12.0 05.0 Revolver (1966)
05.0 00.0 Collection Of Oldies (1966)
32.5 11.0 Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
12.0 06.0 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
06.0 01.0 Yellow Submarine (1968)
18.5 09.5 The Beatles (White Album) (Double) (1968)
29.5 12.0 Abbey Road (1969)
05.0 03.0 Hey Jude (1970)
01.0 01.0 The Early Beatles (1970)
10.0 04.0 Let It Be (1970)
20.0 07.5 1962-1966 (Double) (1973)
21.0 08.0 1967-1970 (Double) (1973)
04.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music (1976)
04.0 01.0 Live At The Hollywood Bowl (1977)
06.0 01.5 Love Songs (Double) (1977)
01.0 00.5 Beatles Rarities (1979)
03.0 00.0 Beatles Ballads-20 Original Tracks (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.1 (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.2 (1980)
01.0 01.0 The Beatles Box (12 LP's) (1981)
02.0 00.5 Reel Music (1982)
05.0 02.0 20 Greatest Hits (1982)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 1 (1988)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 2 (1988)
08.0 02.0 Live At The BBC (Double) (1994)
10.0 04.0 Anthology 1 (Double) (1995)
06.0 02.0 Anthology 2 (Double) (1996)
04.0 01.5 Anthology 3 (Double) (1996)
01.0 00.5 Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
28.0 10.0 1 (2000)
01.5 01.0 Let It Be - Naked (2003)
00.3 00.3 Capitol Box Volume 1 (2004)

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348.3 million
Total US certified: 134.2 million (170 m. counting double albums)

Apart from the UK and US releases, which were released all over the world,
most countries issued their own specific Beatles releases, especially before Apple came into being in 1968.
There are at least 50 albums, which were released by record companies like Capitol Canada, Odeon, Electrola, etc.

These are the most successful ones:

(sales in million, title)

2.0 Beatles in Italy
1.0 The Beatles Nr. 1-5 (1964 Mexican LPs)[/b]
1.0 The Beatles In The Beginning (ca. 1960)
1.0 Live At The Star Club Albums
1.0 Beatles Beat
1.0 20 Golden Hits
0.5 Greatest Hits (1965)
0.5 Beatles First
0.4 Songs, Pictures & Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles
0.3 14 Plus Grands Succes (1965)
0.2 Beatles Tapes

These 12 sold about 10 million. If we take an average of 100,000 for the other 48 albums, we reach a total of about 15 million.

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348 million
Total world sales foreign releases: 15 million

Grand total: 363 million.

I have to say that some of those sales estimates look miles over the top! Meet The Beatles 9 million (when With The Beatles were available in most countries outside the USA). A Hard Day's Night, 11 million, Rubber Soul, 12 million...........hmmmmmmm........

Oldies but Goldies 5 million?! And the original Yellow Submarine soundtrack at SIX MILLION! Can't see it.

Of course this list was produced before the Love album, and before the remasters, and adding in figures for those projects would partly make up for the obvious over estimations, but still some questionable figures there, to say the least. At least mention is made of the Beatles albums released on other labels, apart from Capitol and EMI.

I still say that you can only reach the 500 million mark, in total record sales for the group, by counting double (that is, one double album equates to two sales).

Only my opinion, of course.............

Well, saved me the bother Cat.

I have to say that some of those sales estimates look miles over the top! Meet The Beatles 9 million (when With The Beatles were available in most countries outside the USA).

I too stopped here and thought to myself - as I've mentioned twice now - that Hanboo wouldn't be so happy with that list now the Kronemyer Data is available.

If people wish to invent numbers that is their business. There is only so much I can say too help some overcome this prediliction.

But as Cat has pointed out here, it is blindingly obvious to anyone who looks even vaguely at all the evidence that something doesn't quite ring true when it comes to official Beatles sales.

Please don't tell me that Elvis fans are the only ones who make things up or believe tall stories.

And as other label releases have been raised quite a lot recently, how is it ok to allocate 100k to each of 48 myriad Fab4 albums outside of the States and not do something similar for 'missing sales' of a few hundred Presley albums within the States? Do you see how unjust that is?

Beatles in Italy 2m. Ha. Sorry Hanboo!

Topicel

[ouf]

Topicel, 5 years ago, On Sun Aug 28, 2005, Hanboo found 363 million albums sold by The Beatles.
You found for the year 2010 336 million albums sold.
What are your arguments?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

Here's some Beatles world album sales info I posted on Dotmusic in 2003.
I've updated some figures.

Offical Beatles US/UK releases

Sales in millions
(world sales, RIAA certified level, title, year of releae)

06.0 01.0 Please Please Me (1963)
06.0 00.5 With The Beatles (1963)
09.0 05.0 Meet The Beatles (1964)
02.0 01.4 Introducing The Beatles (1964)
04.0 02.0 Second Album (1964)
11.0 04.0 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
04.0 02.0 Something New (1964)
02.0 00.5 Story Of The Beatles (1964)
06.0 01.0 Beatles For Sale (1964)
05.0 03.0 Beatles '65 (1965)
04.0 02.0 Beatles VI (1965)
10.0 03.0 Help! (1965)
12.0 06.0 Rubber Soul (1965)
04.0 02.0 Yesterday And Today (1966)
12.0 05.0 Revolver (1966)
05.0 00.0 Collection Of Oldies (1966)
32.5 11.0 Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
12.0 06.0 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
06.0 01.0 Yellow Submarine (1968)
18.5 09.5 The Beatles (White Album) (Double) (1968)
29.5 12.0 Abbey Road (1969)
05.0 03.0 Hey Jude (1970)
01.0 01.0 The Early Beatles (1970)
10.0 04.0 Let It Be (1970)
20.0 07.5 1962-1966 (Double) (1973)
21.0 08.0 1967-1970 (Double) (1973)
04.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music (1976)
04.0 01.0 Live At The Hollywood Bowl (1977)
06.0 01.5 Love Songs (Double) (1977)
01.0 00.5 Beatles Rarities (1979)
03.0 00.0 Beatles Ballads-20 Original Tracks (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.1 (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.2 (1980)
01.0 01.0 The Beatles Box (12 LP's) (1981)
02.0 00.5 Reel Music (1982)
05.0 02.0 20 Greatest Hits (1982)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 1 (1988)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 2 (1988)
08.0 02.0 Live At The BBC (Double) (1994)
10.0 04.0 Anthology 1 (Double) (1995)
06.0 02.0 Anthology 2 (Double) (1996)
04.0 01.5 Anthology 3 (Double) (1996)
01.0 00.5 Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
28.0 10.0 1 (2000)
01.5 01.0 Let It Be - Naked (2003)
00.3 00.3 Capitol Box Volume 1 (2004)

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348.3 million
Total US certified: 134.2 million (170 m. counting double albums)

Apart from the UK and US releases, which were released all over the world,
most countries issued their own specific Beatles releases, especially before Apple came into being in 1968.
There are at least 50 albums, which were released by record companies like Capitol Canada, Odeon, Electrola, etc.

These are the most successful ones:

(sales in million, title)

2.0 Beatles in Italy
1.0 The Beatles Nr. 1-5 (1964 Mexican LPs)[/b]
1.0 The Beatles In The Beginning (ca. 1960)
1.0 Live At The Star Club Albums
1.0 Beatles Beat
1.0 20 Golden Hits
0.5 Greatest Hits (1965)
0.5 Beatles First
0.4 Songs, Pictures & Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles
0.3 14 Plus Grands Succes (1965)
0.2 Beatles Tapes

These 12 sold about 10 million. If we take an average of 100,000 for the other 48 albums, we reach a total of about 15 million.

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348 million
Total world sales foreign releases: 15 million

Grand total: 363 million.

Not quite sure what you mean Ouf by "what are your arguments?".

I suggested how 336m could be reached in the extreme in the original piece. HUR, for one, immediately spotted that it was a generous conclusion to say 171m for the last 20 years.

And on my preferred basis of 'one copy sold' then it makes perfect sense to make the comparisons in the way I did with solid US data from Kronemyer and Soundscan as the framework.

It could be much less, but I've got no means of breaking down each album in any precise way otherwise. Have you?

Topicel

For Elvis, you used the system "‘unknown unknowns" (or the system +50%)
For gold (500,000), you counted 750,000(+250,000)
For Platinum (1 million), you counted 1,5 million (+500,000)

Why you don't use the same system for Beatles?

[Topicel]

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=350

Certified sales of the Beatles in Germany do not include their sales of the 1960s. Their record company in those days, Odeon, never certified any of their Beatles records. The Beatles only got started to get certified when Odeon was no longer responsible for distributing their records in Germany and EMI took over themselves some time in the 1980s I guess.

None of the Beatles sales in Germany are included in the certifications of their albums since the 1980s, because Odeon had no hand in that, and their documents from the 1960s were either not available or not kept.

This was posted in other thread, I thought I should post it here.

As in the UK, not one BEATLES German Album has ANY Sales Awards from the 1960's!

Yes, they have. But the sales were so low.
Up to 1976, their best selling albums in Germany were.
1967-1970 - 605,000
1962-1966 - 584,000
Abbey Road - 410,000
and others would be 300,000 or something.

The chart fact.

Title       Debut      PK  T10  WK
1962-1966   05/15/1973  2  123  279  (1,500,000)
1967-1970   06/15/1973  2  84   269  (2,000,000)

Please Pl   03/15/1964  1  20    28
With The B  01/15/1964  1  36    52  (250,000)
B. Beat     08/15/1964  6   4    20
B. For Sale 01/16/1965  1  32    40
Beatles '65 04/15/1965  9   4    28
Help!       08/15/1965  1  28    44
Rubber Soul 01/15/1966  1  32    40  (250,000)
Revolver    09/15/1966  1  20    32
Sgt. Pepper 07/15/1967  1  20    36  (500,000)
White Album 12/15/1968  1  32    36
Yellow Sub  03/15/1969  5   8    16
Abbey Road  10/15/1969  1  28    28  (500,000)
Let It Be   06/15/1970  3  12    20

Reading this statistics, it so hard to estimate the sales...
Or maybe weekly sales in the early 60s were low, so no matter how many weeks in Top 10, finally only reach 250,000 sales. Then in the late 60s, the sales were increasing...
And some maybe for the huge sales in particular weeks, like Abbey Road or Sgt...
Other albums' sales were steady as they might be not brilliant as others...

So Abbey Road's sales were all said and done up to 1976. Then there's certifications for Platinum (500,000).
And "1962-1966" and "1967-1970" were still on chart, so with further 500,000 or something. Then in 1993 with the further 300,000 sales (both peaked at #16 or #19).

[quote:vrv9ake8]Reading this statistics, it so hard to estimate the sales...

Is there a German on Ukmix.
I have read that in 1962/1963, Tony's Shéridan album was selling 100,000 units in Germany.
I have also read 220,000 units for this album: "My Bonnie"
If is true, what are the real sales of the Beatles in Germany during their career in this country.
The group still holds in 2007, 6 records charts singles
And 6 Other records charts albums.
In connection, another information:
No relation to the record sales, but it seems very important.
"Beatles Help Spin West German Disk Business To $86-Million Profit in 1965", Variety, April 13, 1966"
http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/archi ... -7289.html
$86-Million Profit in 1965"= $570-Million Profit in 2007!!!
Your opinion, Ukmix?

[/quote:vrv9ake8]

Well Ouf, that is an old one, and if you want my opinion I would say MJD is correct in that the sales will be low (comparatively speaking) in the sixties – kinda like you should now have figured anyway I would hope – for the major Beatles albums and consequently the Sheridan/My Bonnie material would be nowhere near a six-figure total across Europe, nevermind en Allemagne.

If you are also asking about what Herkenrath said, I have no reason to doubt his conclusions that original sales from the active career of the group were not included in any German awards. Equally though, what Nelson ventured is also reasonable, so without the dates of those awards for such as ‘Rubber Soul’, ‘Abbey Road’ and so on it is hard to make much sense of it altogether.

What I do reckon is the ongoing market for Beatles albums in Germany will not be spectacular for what I call the original ‘non-essential’ catalogue albums – i.e. those pre-1967 – and maybe even a couple thereafter.

The ‘red’ and ‘blue’ certs will be about right unless they double-count, which as some may know I believe to be sleight-of-hand and cunning of the lowest order sent to confuse the public and even us poor old analysts.

Topicel

[blackcat]

Beatles album sales estimates:

Hanboo : 363 million
MJD : 352 million
Topicel: 336 million

Average : 350 million

cheers

Indeed Bobdeb, but as I've said I see 336m being far too much, so it would be a false average to include my musings.

I've indicated that Hanboo may well have a different view since the Kronemyer Data came to light. We also know MJD said the K information changed nothing for him and you all accept his estimates are satisfactory - like those of his singles - so why worry what I say?

Topicel

When did I say that MJD's estimates - including his singles - were satisfactory?! Have said quite the opposite, in fact.

All 3 estimates - topicel's, MJD's, and Hanboo - look too high for me. As I keep saying, it is only with double counting that you stand a good chance of making the half a billion. IMHO.

[blackcat]

Topicel, 5 years ago, On Sun Aug 28, 2005, Hanboo found 363 million albums sold by The Beatles.
You found for the year 2010 336 million albums sold.
What are your arguments?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

Here's some Beatles world album sales info I posted on Dotmusic in 2003.
I've updated some figures.

Offical Beatles US/UK releases

Sales in millions
(world sales, RIAA certified level, title, year of releae)

06.0 01.0 Please Please Me (1963)
06.0 00.5 With The Beatles (1963)
09.0 05.0 Meet The Beatles (1964)
02.0 01.4 Introducing The Beatles (1964)
04.0 02.0 Second Album (1964)
11.0 04.0 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
04.0 02.0 Something New (1964)
02.0 00.5 Story Of The Beatles (1964)
06.0 01.0 Beatles For Sale (1964)
05.0 03.0 Beatles '65 (1965)
04.0 02.0 Beatles VI (1965)
10.0 03.0 Help! (1965)
12.0 06.0 Rubber Soul (1965)
04.0 02.0 Yesterday And Today (1966)
12.0 05.0 Revolver (1966)
05.0 00.0 Collection Of Oldies (1966)
32.5 11.0 Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
12.0 06.0 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
06.0 01.0 Yellow Submarine (1968)
18.5 09.5 The Beatles (White Album) (Double) (1968)
29.5 12.0 Abbey Road (1969)
05.0 03.0 Hey Jude (1970)
01.0 01.0 The Early Beatles (1970)
10.0 04.0 Let It Be (1970)
20.0 07.5 1962-1966 (Double) (1973)
21.0 08.0 1967-1970 (Double) (1973)
04.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music (1976)
04.0 01.0 Live At The Hollywood Bowl (1977)
06.0 01.5 Love Songs (Double) (1977)
01.0 00.5 Beatles Rarities (1979)
03.0 00.0 Beatles Ballads-20 Original Tracks (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.1 (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.2 (1980)
01.0 01.0 The Beatles Box (12 LP's) (1981)
02.0 00.5 Reel Music (1982)
05.0 02.0 20 Greatest Hits (1982)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 1 (1988)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 2 (1988)
08.0 02.0 Live At The BBC (Double) (1994)
10.0 04.0 Anthology 1 (Double) (1995)
06.0 02.0 Anthology 2 (Double) (1996)
04.0 01.5 Anthology 3 (Double) (1996)
01.0 00.5 Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
28.0 10.0 1 (2000)
01.5 01.0 Let It Be - Naked (2003)
00.3 00.3 Capitol Box Volume 1 (2004)

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348.3 million
Total US certified: 134.2 million (170 m. counting double albums)

Apart from the UK and US releases, which were released all over the world,
most countries issued their own specific Beatles releases, especially before Apple came into being in 1968.
There are at least 50 albums, which were released by record companies like Capitol Canada, Odeon, Electrola, etc.

These are the most successful ones:

(sales in million, title)

2.0 Beatles in Italy
1.0 The Beatles Nr. 1-5 (1964 Mexican LPs)[/b]
1.0 The Beatles In The Beginning (ca. 1960)
1.0 Live At The Star Club Albums
1.0 Beatles Beat
1.0 20 Golden Hits
0.5 Greatest Hits (1965)
0.5 Beatles First
0.4 Songs, Pictures & Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles
0.3 14 Plus Grands Succes (1965)
0.2 Beatles Tapes

These 12 sold about 10 million. If we take an average of 100,000 for the other 48 albums, we reach a total of about 15 million.

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348 million
Total world sales foreign releases: 15 million

Grand total: 363 million.

Not quite sure what you mean Ouf by "what are your arguments?".

I suggested how 336m could be reached in the extreme in the original piece. HUR, for one, immediately spotted that it was a generous conclusion to say 171m for the last 20 years.

And on my preferred basis of 'one copy sold' then it makes perfect sense to make the comparisons in the way I did with solid US data from Kronemyer and Soundscan as the framework.

It could be much less, but I've got no means of breaking down each album in any precise way otherwise. Have you?

Topicel

For Elvis, you used the system "‘unknown unknowns" (or the system +50%)
For gold (500,000), you counted 750,000(+250,000)
For Platinum (1 million), you counted 1,5 million (+500,000)

Why you don't use the same system for Beatles?

LOL! What are you trying to say, Ouf, that Topicel is somehow biased towards Elvis? Fancy someone thinking that on here!!

Wash your mouth out with soap!

[ouf]

The shear volume of beatles records that were released around the world can be mind boggling to comprehend.I have seen dealers at record shows over the years that deal with imports,and it seems that just about anything and everything has been released on the 45 or EP format in some country.Sales volume?Who knows...

The different pressings and reissues etc. would still be subject to pressing and mechanical fee payments and the running totals known Bigred. The fact that there are many label differences and so on is not a restriction on the reporting of the sales!

As for the scale of all this, if you multiply the sheer volume you refer to many times over you are looking at the Presley conundrum. It isn't meant as anything competitive, it is a fact.

I am always astonished by the complexity of the collector catalogues of all major acts. Even a relatively small set of main releases by the likes of Michael Jackson has turned into a major industry of hundreds of Jackson related releases.

And I'm beginning to imagine Madonna fans are gonna be very busy too keeping track of things if they ever want 'complete' collections!

However, it should always be remembered that all these variations do not necessarily add up to as many sales as one might think.

Topicel

The different pressings and reissues etc. would still be subject to pressing and mechanical fee payments and the running totals known Bigred. The fact that there are many label differences and so on is not a restriction on the reporting of the sales!

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=100

EIN: Official RIAA accreditations in the US put Elvis' sales well behind the 600 million or so units claimed for North America . A huge jump in accredited figures will be needed to bridge the 400 million sales difference. Do you think that this is likely to happen or will we continue to see incremental gains in Elvis' overall accredited sales position?
Ernst Jorgensen, the guy that manages Elvis' catalog at BMG since ca. 1990 said:
"I’m not sure I understand the question! However, there are many factors contributing to the issue. For example:

Brookville Record sales cannot at present be certified (7 x platinum – 2 albums)
Another 5 to 7 million sales of Pickwick releases cannot be fully certified. Numbers are known, but they come from an audit report and not from actual sales accounting
Missing sales info on pre computer sales
Missing international sales reports. Elvis was not with RCA in many countries
Missing SUN sales figures (small numbers I know, but!!!)
About 400 U.S. album releases (RCA, Special products and more) all between one of other level of certification. RIAA only counts full millions. So if any album sold 1.999,999, it still counts as 1 million – you can try and multiply 400 by whatever average you think is mathematically realistic.

You say exactly the opposite of Ernst Jorgensen.
Very important.

Do you think that the Elvis' missing sales was a pure invention linked to RCA' business strategy because it was to difficult for them to accept that an English band from Liverpool sold more in USA than their most profitable artist (Elvis)?

[ouf]

Topicel, 5 years ago, On Sun Aug 28, 2005, Hanboo found 363 million albums sold by The Beatles.
You found for the year 2010 336 million albums sold.
What are your arguments?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

Here's some Beatles world album sales info I posted on Dotmusic in 2003.
I've updated some figures.

Offical Beatles US/UK releases

Sales in millions
(world sales, RIAA certified level, title, year of releae)

06.0 01.0 Please Please Me (1963)
06.0 00.5 With The Beatles (1963)
09.0 05.0 Meet The Beatles (1964)
02.0 01.4 Introducing The Beatles (1964)
04.0 02.0 Second Album (1964)
11.0 04.0 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
04.0 02.0 Something New (1964)
02.0 00.5 Story Of The Beatles (1964)
06.0 01.0 Beatles For Sale (1964)
05.0 03.0 Beatles '65 (1965)
04.0 02.0 Beatles VI (1965)
10.0 03.0 Help! (1965)
12.0 06.0 Rubber Soul (1965)
04.0 02.0 Yesterday And Today (1966)
12.0 05.0 Revolver (1966)
05.0 00.0 Collection Of Oldies (1966)
32.5 11.0 Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
12.0 06.0 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
06.0 01.0 Yellow Submarine (1968)
18.5 09.5 The Beatles (White Album) (Double) (1968)
29.5 12.0 Abbey Road (1969)
05.0 03.0 Hey Jude (1970)
01.0 01.0 The Early Beatles (1970)
10.0 04.0 Let It Be (1970)
20.0 07.5 1962-1966 (Double) (1973)
21.0 08.0 1967-1970 (Double) (1973)
04.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music (1976)
04.0 01.0 Live At The Hollywood Bowl (1977)
06.0 01.5 Love Songs (Double) (1977)
01.0 00.5 Beatles Rarities (1979)
03.0 00.0 Beatles Ballads-20 Original Tracks (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.1 (1980)
01.0 01.0 Rock & Roll Music, Vol.2 (1980)
01.0 01.0 The Beatles Box (12 LP's) (1981)
02.0 00.5 Reel Music (1982)
05.0 02.0 20 Greatest Hits (1982)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 1 (1988)
02.0 01.0 Past Masters, Vol. 2 (1988)
08.0 02.0 Live At The BBC (Double) (1994)
10.0 04.0 Anthology 1 (Double) (1995)
06.0 02.0 Anthology 2 (Double) (1996)
04.0 01.5 Anthology 3 (Double) (1996)
01.0 00.5 Yellow Submarine Songtrack (1999)
28.0 10.0 1 (2000)
01.5 01.0 Let It Be - Naked (2003)
00.3 00.3 Capitol Box Volume 1 (2004)

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348.3 million
Total US certified: 134.2 million (170 m. counting double albums)

Apart from the UK and US releases, which were released all over the world,
most countries issued their own specific Beatles releases, especially before Apple came into being in 1968.
There are at least 50 albums, which were released by record companies like Capitol Canada, Odeon, Electrola, etc.

These are the most successful ones:

(sales in million, title)

2.0 Beatles in Italy
1.0 The Beatles Nr. 1-5 (1964 Mexican LPs)[/b]
1.0 The Beatles In The Beginning (ca. 1960)
1.0 Live At The Star Club Albums
1.0 Beatles Beat
1.0 20 Golden Hits
0.5 Greatest Hits (1965)
0.5 Beatles First
0.4 Songs, Pictures & Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles
0.3 14 Plus Grands Succes (1965)
0.2 Beatles Tapes

These 12 sold about 10 million. If we take an average of 100,000 for the other 48 albums, we reach a total of about 15 million.

Total world sales official US/UK releases: 348 million
Total world sales foreign releases: 15 million

Grand total: 363 million.

Not quite sure what you mean Ouf by "what are your arguments?".

I suggested how 336m could be reached in the extreme in the original piece. HUR, for one, immediately spotted that it was a generous conclusion to say 171m for the last 20 years.

And on my preferred basis of 'one copy sold' then it makes perfect sense to make the comparisons in the way I did with solid US data from Kronemyer and Soundscan as the framework.

It could be much less, but I've got no means of breaking down each album in any precise way otherwise. Have you?

Topicel

For Elvis, you used the system "‘unknown unknowns" (or the system +50%)
For gold (500,000), you counted 750,000(+250,000)
For Platinum (1 million), you counted 1,5 million (+500,000)

Why you don't use the same system for Beatles?

LOL! What are you trying to say, Ouf, that Topicel is somehow biased towards Elvis? Fancy someone thinking that on here!!

Wash your mouth out with soap!

LOL Balckcat, you know perfectly why i wrote this.
For his demonstrations, Topicel must use the same system or the same systems for all acts.
For Elvis and for reach 50 million by 1959 he used the system "‘unknown unknowns". What is it the system "‘unknown unknowns"?
For Elvis, Topicel used 750,000 units for "Gold Record" instead 500,000, and for Platinum he used 1,5 million instead 1 million (or 2,5m instead 2m...same thing for 3 and 4 million).
Why he didn't use the same system for The Beatles? (but in reality for all artists)
I like this system because we get 2 figures.
I prefer think that X sold between 500,000 and 750,000 rather that X sold precisely 500,000 or 750,000.
Moreover, the idea of this system is not false.
It's a great contribution by Topicel!
Why not to talk about it, the "Topicel System".
I vote : yes.
It's a great contribution.

[Topicel]

And he wrote this:

Yes MJD, we know that one billion is a 'singles' equivalent (actually times 5) by EMI, but even you are saying 500 million based on 350-plus million albums.

Are you saying you knew the 80 million in the US up to 1985 already, and from that still maintain 350m worldwide? I think 400 million is tops for the Beatles based on this Kronemyer data. Or don't you believe those figures either?

But the overall total is too vast to really get a handle on, it is the Sgt. Pepper individual claim in the UK (put fully into context by these US sales) that helps us understand that even the biggest and the best still are hyper-inflated - even on UKMix.

(PS - thanks for the cassette details on that thread yesterday, I'll respond soon with some thought provoking information).

I estimated Beatles album sales 3 years ago at 340 million, I have re-work on them several times, always with new data, and yes they still up to 350 million. I'm dead sure they aren't lower. The Beatles scanned over 57 million albums since 1991 in the US, add to this 80 million up to 1985, sales 85-91 (huge due to CD releases) and all sales of non-EMI releases, they sold 150 million in the US, give or take a few millions.

Out of the US, they were and are just as big as there. Look at 'One' - Alone, it sold 20 million copies out of the US. Albums like Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road aren't very far from this, plus loads and loads of massive sellers (like Red and Blue compilations, 50 million together worldwide including around 34 million out of the US).

Figure of 350 million is 'correct', not that it is 'proved', but from what we know, that's the figure we can safely put out without being to much conservative nor utopic.

Their single sales are pretty much known. With all details posted, they looked to be over 120 million from their early sales and Billboard posted a figure of 125 million in 1972 which fits perfectly. Add their reissues, that's more or less 140 million, again with a very small % of possible mistake.

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=575

Well I’m glad I wasn’t dreaming about MJD’s attitude towards the appearance of the Kronemyer Data not changing his view that 350m was ‘correct’. He must be one clever dude to have been so aware of those figures that they changed nothing for him! And despite this evidence he then still managed to crank up the overall total more than two-fold since 1985 – assuming we even allow a US/global split of 50/50 during those years. And by-the-way, please note here that this serious record sales statistician – because errors of judgement nothwithstanding, that is what he was – also counted one copy sold as one sale, just as the record companies who make their money out of the business, so there is no ‘double-counting’ hiding place for his 350m (or indeed that 363m of Hanboo) once you put on the correct set of forensic glasses and look closely enough.

Looking back, it can be seen from the start the discussions we had were fine until at some point he seemed to decide there was a ‘threat’ to his omnipotence, and then some insecurity, or an inability to accept certain assumptions he’d been making were seriously mistaken, kicked-in. Like a kitten playing with a ball of twine, he got caught up trying to untangle himself and became increasingly dismissive and aggressive in turns when confronted.

But we all know how that went. The repetition of the singles sales points in his answers above are surely enough to suggest that if he was so far out with those that his album numbers could have also been highly optimistic. He did say himself a ‘very small percentage of possible mistake’ after all…

Anyway, he justified his album sales conclusions with some lopsided views about ‘One’ and so on which I’ve always pointed out was a total ‘one-off’! I won’t bother chewing over it all again anew, but will simply point you to my original replies on that same page as the link you gave, and principally this one:

It seems you are convinced of your figures MJD, and I would never denegrate your enthusiastic or efficient work on the sales front on most artists, maybe even including the Beatles. But please bear in mind I have been watching these threads for three years (for the gems of information that they do provide) and rarely posted, but have chosen to comment – in affirmation, I hope you’ll note – with the surprising release of the Kronemyer figures. Hopefully that tells you something, but perhaps not.

Anyway, you’re certain that 350 million is correct, and, as I recall Basil saying elsewhere, it is a free world and each much chose to believe or disbelieve what they will. (Ironically, in his case, he was commenting about information he had that led to a conclusion about Sgt. Pepper in the UK at over 5 million that you may have seen I am now questioning. Lol!).

So, what I’m saying isn’t so awful, it is a case of percentages, and I know you use these well in many calculations elsewhere. My assertion is simple: 1963-1985 the Beatles sold 80 million albums in the US (and notice the red figures by-the-way from Kronemyer) and it is generally recognised that the States over this timescale was 60%, (or at very best 50%) of the world market, particularly when the bulk of their sales occurred to 1973. Times have changed and the rest of the globe are wealthier and have bought some of the music that passed them by when they didn’t have so much to spend on records. Yes, ‘One’ is a prime example of an exception, but the rest of the catalogue would not be so necessary for people in non-English speaking countries to purchase ahead of any of the other great bands/artists from the West, never mind their own indiginous acts.

If we now assume since 1991 the USA has averaged 35% of the world market (you’ll be more au fait than I with the exact current and recent trends in this regard), the 57 million from 1991-2008 leaves us looking at 105 million elsewhere. I really don’t believe that figure, but even so we are left with 65 million in the five years 1986-90. You don’t think that is right do you? Without checking, it is at most 25 million…

Now, before anyone wonders, I am a convert to the Fab Four and believe them to be the greatest band to ever sell records, and without any doubt they sold the most. Just not as many as some people maintain - even with the best intentions. And don’t ask me to guess either. Jamais!

And this one:

Many thanks for your views MJD. As always, well argued and with an impressive array of figures.

Just to clarify my 65 million, that you weren’t sure about, was a typo and should have stated 55m. It was based on the Kronemyer 80 million 1963-85 US figure being 60% of album sales elsewhere in the world = 133m. The 57 million US 1991-2008 was considered as 35% of the global total and therefore indicates on that basis 105 million elsewhere in the world = 162m.

350m less 133m less 162m = 55 million for the ‘missing’ five years. I apologise for the mix-up.

I guess where it seems we are at odds is the overseas market for Beatles music, particularly catalogue sales since 1991 and, to a lesser extent perhaps, but still significant, post-1973. My comment to you earlier read as follows:

“Times have changed and the rest of the globe are wealthier and have bought some of the music that passed them by when they didn’t have so much to spend on records. Yes, ‘One’ is a prime example of an exception, but the rest of the catalogue would not be so necessary for people in non-English speaking countries to purchase ahead of any of the other great bands/artists from the West, never mind their own indiginous acts.”

This is for you to prove otherwise. The ‘greatest hits’ will have been popular worldwide – as with most gigantic acts – but to suggest the catalogue sold 60m from 1991 to 2008 is stretching things enormously. Why would this be? Once you’ve got ‘One’ or the ‘Red & ‘Blue’ albums you don’t need the rest if you’re talking about a band that was active in the sixties – no matter how great they were. The language barrier still exists as it did before, regrettably. The exceptions are possibly ‘Abbey Road’ and ‘Sgt. Pepper’, but that is far from their catalogue. Are you saying each of these sold 20m since 1991 outside the US??? Please, you have to give some Kronemyer-type figures before you can say catalogue was selling in those numbers. It is a wild guess.

Let’s look at a random year – say 1983 – all the original Beatle catalogue albums sold less than 400,000 according to Kronemyer, and this includes albums not available elsewhere. Even the year after Lennon died they only sold c. 1,750,000, the country with the biggest posthumous reaction of all. I think you are doing two things that flaw your calculations badly; firstly, you consider world sales were 35% only for US from 1973, which is patently too low (since the nineties, perhaps, as we are agreeing, but again it will be only for the big new compilations); secondly, you’re assuming that this percentage of overseas sales is for western/english-speaking acts in those countries. This is also illogical – as Mario informs us Japan is very heavily into its own music, and the same is often still true even in Western Europe, nevermind all the other Asia countries you loosely claim as being ‘gigantic sellers’, or Africa, Latin America etc. etc. When figures of 35% of the world market apply to USA you can bet it is more like 50% or more if the question to the IFPI was ‘What is the percentage of the global market of English-language album sales for the USA’. Canada and the UK won’t make up for this!

I would humbly suggest you re-do your figures with the proper weighting for the English-language market in each territory and you’ll be nearer the mark. And then remember the big compilations and perhaps two or three of their stellar albums were probably the only albums getting anywhere near this anyway!

Being French, I suppose you have a very good grasp on your local sales achievements for almost any act. You quote ‘close to 300,000’ for the Red & Blue CDs in 1993 alone, their peak year, I’m sure you’ll agree. What are the totals for these double albums now in France? What do you think it became in 1994, probably its next biggest year? A genuine question, MJD. Similarly, would you hazard a guess at the global CD figure of each of these two albums at the end of 1993 following the massive worldwide CD re-launch in September that year?

Anyway, it is all good debate, and perhaps if nothing else you’ll see where I’m coming from in stating that the grand album total is probably too high at 350m. Perhaps you’ll find the 55m between 85-91 for me!

Regards.

It seems that some have this fondly held belief that the basic Beatles catalogue (aside from the Pepper, Abbey Road etc. perennial favourites and the hit packages) sold hundreds of thousands year-in-year-out during the seventies and eighties to those poor people who didn’t buy the albums in the sixties. Well maybe that is right and only the Beatles had the ability to do this without denting the charts with the said albums?

There will always be peaks and troughs of interest in the most successful catalogue of popular albums in recording industry history, but let’s be honest, the required international sales of the more ‘minor’ items to achieve an overall tally well in excess of 300m worldwide is simply unrealistic.

Topicel

[Topicel]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

Cat, my piece on MFG - based on the slightly re-written Billboard article that I've reproduced there from an original in Music Week a few days earlier - is public domain stuff. It's on the Billboard Google Books pages.

However, the revelation about the figures including solo sales by the ex-members of the band (albums as well as singles please note) is the bit EMI did not reveal to the press, or the Guinness Book of Records either - who again fell hook, line and sinker for what they were told!

MJD knew nothing of this, as he knew nothing of the Kronemyer Data, so it is hardly surprising he was way out with his estimations. But even not knowing the figures were 'adapted', it was equally surprising to me all along that he made no attempt to work such important information as the 1972 numbers into his calculations.

What makes him a poor analyst/historian or what-have-you is his inability to adjust to changing circumstances and evidence.

Galileo was wrong; and there was no Holocaust. Things change, even our understanding of a simple thing like record sales and the machinations behind how they're presented to us.

Topicel

[blackcat]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

Cat, my piece on MFG - based on the slightly re-written Billboard article that I've reproduced there from an original in Music Week a few days earlier - is public domain stuff. It's on the Billboard Google Books pages.

However, the revelation about the figures including solo sales by the ex-members of the band (albums as well as singles please note) is the bit EMI did not reveal to the press, or the Guinness Book of Records either - who again fell hook, line and sinker for what they were told!

MJD knew nothing of this, as he knew nothing of the Kronemyer Data, so it is hardly surprising he was way out with his estimations. But even not knowing the figures were 'adapted', it was equally surprising to me all along that he made no attempt to work such important information as the 1972 numbers into his calculations.

What makes him a poor analyst/historian or what-have-you is his inability to adjust to changing circumstances and evidence.

Galileo was wrong; and there was no Holocaust. Things change, even our understanding of a simple thing like record sales and the machinations behind how they're presented to us.

Topicel

I agree, things do change, like you say, even our understanding of a simple thing like record sales -including a far better and far fairer system of estimating all-time artists album sales. Its called double counting..................

That also requires an adjustment to changing circumstances and evidence, don't you think...........

(OOH, how I love it when a good, clever rebutt works out!!!! :evil: )

[Topicel]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

I don't think EMI/APPLE were dishonest when they included John/Paul/George/Ringo in the Beatles'total.
In 1967, The Beatles signed a contract until 1975 (or 1976))
So, their sales were included.
After all, contractually it was like that.
Look estate Michael Jackson: their figures including also Jackson5.
And Elvis, Beatles'songs who he covered was counted for him.
Why not also for The Beatles? It's their songs, no?
But if you count all the Beatles songs covered by other artists - thousands around the world - how many?...Billion?

I believe I stated as much about the rationale of EMI executives that agreed to the massaging of the Beatles sales figures in 1972 and 1973 announcements to include solo sales because they were all under contract and members of 'the group'.

Of course, it wasn't cheating. It made perfect sense to count the sales of what they now did separately along with what they used to do together. Just don't tell anyone!

Tell you what, let's also keep adding in those numbers when we re-count in future decades, it'll be a matter of record by then and no-one will be any the wiser...

Of course Ouf. If you wish to be a cyclops about this then go right ahead! The Shadows now have all the chart entries in the UK of Cliff Richard's hits they played on due to such re-writing of history.

The Guinness (yes them again) Book of Hit Singles thought it was a great idea to do this and change dozens of longstanding and accepted rankings from the most hits to most No. 1's and Top Tens. All for what? Because the Shads were given a sub-credit on the records.

Perhaps if 'Imagine' had been released with the credit John Lennon (and the other Beatles), or 'Band On The Run' had noted the album as by Wings with a little help from my friends John, George and Ringo, then it would be ok.

But they didn't, and they were entirely separate recording enterprises. Both artistically and contractually.

EMI's press department were slipperier than a bunch of snakes in a soap factory, and this blatant attempt in 1972 to claim a new sales mark was the worst example yet of what they were prepared to do to achieve this aim.

But of course you jest Ouf.

Topicel

[Topicel]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

I don't think EMI/APPLE were dishonest when they included John/Paul/George/Ringo in the Beatles'total.
In 1967, The Beatles signed a contract until 1975 (or 1976))
So, their sales were included.
After all, contractually it was like that.
Look estate Michael Jackson: their figures including also Jackson5.
And Elvis, Beatles'songs who he covered was counted for him.
Why not also for The Beatles? It's their songs, no?
But if you count all the Beatles songs covered by other artists - thousands around the world - how many?...Billion?

Yes, fair point.

Alright, then, misleadingly included by EMI!

Good job I hadn't said all that Cat, I reckon I wouldn't have been let of so lightly...

Topicel

[blackcat]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

I don't think EMI/APPLE were dishonest when they included John/Paul/George/Ringo in the Beatles'total.
In 1967, The Beatles signed a contract until 1975 (or 1976))
So, their sales were included.
After all, contractually it was like that.
Look estate Michael Jackson: their figures including also Jackson5.
And Elvis, Beatles'songs who he covered was counted for him.
Why not also for The Beatles? It's their songs, no?
But if you count all the Beatles songs covered by other artists - thousands around the world - how many?...Billion?

I believe I stated as much about the rationale of EMI executives that agreed to the massaging of the Beatles sales figures in 1972 and 1973 announcements to include solo sales because they were all under contract and members of 'the group'.

Of course, it wasn't cheating. It made perfect sense to count the sales of what they now did separately along with what they used to do together. Just don't tell anyone!

Tell you what, let's also keep adding in those numbers when we re-count in future decades, it'll be a matter of record by then and no-one will be any the wiser...

Of course Ouf. If you wish to be a cyclops about this then go right ahead! The Shadows now have all the chart entries in the UK of Cliff Richard's hits they played on due to such re-writing of history.

The Guinness (yes them again) Book of Hit Singles thought it was a great idea to do this and change dozens of longstanding and accepted rankings from the most hits to most No. 1's and Top Tens. All for what? Because the Shads were given a sub-credit on the records.

Perhaps if 'Imagine' had been released with the credit John Lennon (and the other Beatles), or 'Band On The Run' had noted the album as by Wings with a little help from my friends John, George and Ringo, then it would be ok.

But they didn't, and they were entirely separate recording enterprises. Both artistically and contractually.

EMI's press department were slipperier than a bunch of snakes in a soap factory, and this blatant attempt in 1972 to claim a new sales mark was the worst example yet of what they were prepared to do to achieve this aim.

But of course you jest Ouf.

Topicel

And RCA's public relations people were even more slippy when they flaunted the billion claims for Elvis over and over again in the 1980's. Remember Bobdeb's link:

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_bil ... ales.shtml


Disgusting and dishonest behaviour by RCA over falsely claimed Elvis sales.

Just thought that I would mention that as well, Topicel.

[ouf]

Billboard
28 oct 1972

Worldwide sales in their first 10 years

125 million singles
85 million albums

These two figures intrigue me.
Why he gave this two figures?
He seems convinced that it is correct.
Why?
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopi...=asc&start=550

This singles figure sounds like the figure Topicel was pinpointing on his website, where some of the Beatles solo singles were dishonestly included in the total by EMI! It is from the same year, anyway, 1972.

MJD seems adamant that the Beatles must have sold at least 350 million albums, not less.

Well, time for something to eat, then I will analyse MJD's stats!

I don't think EMI/APPLE were dishonest when they included John/Paul/George/Ringo in the Beatles'total.
In 1967, The Beatles signed a contract until 1975 (or 1976))
So, their sales were included.
After all, contractually it was like that.
Look estate Michael Jackson: their figures including also Jackson5.
And Elvis, Beatles'songs who he covered was counted for him.
Why not also for The Beatles? It's their songs, no?
But if you count all the Beatles songs covered by other artists - thousands around the world - how many?...Billion?

I believe I stated as much about the rationale of EMI executives that agreed to the massaging of the Beatles sales figures in 1972 and 1973 announcements to include solo sales because they were all under contract and members of 'the group'.

Of course, it wasn't cheating. It made perfect sense to count the sales of what they now did separately along with what they used to do together. Just don't tell anyone!

Tell you what, let's also keep adding in those numbers when we re-count in future decades, it'll be a matter of record by then and no-one will be any the wiser...

Of course Ouf. If you wish to be a cyclops about this then go right ahead! The Shadows now have all the chart entries in the UK of Cliff Richard's hits they played on due to such re-writing of history.

The Guinness (yes them again) Book of Hit Singles thought it was a great idea to do this and change dozens of longstanding and accepted rankings from the most hits to most No. 1's and Top Tens. All for what? Because the Shads were given a sub-credit on the records.

Perhaps if 'Imagine' had been released with the credit John Lennon (and the other Beatles), or 'Band On The Run' had noted the album as by Wings with a little help from my friends John, George and Ringo, then it would be ok.

But they didn't, and they were entirely separate recording enterprises. Both artistically and contractually.

EMI's press department were slipperier than a bunch of snakes in a soap factory, and this blatant attempt in 1972 to claim a new sales mark was the worst example yet of what they were prepared to do to achieve this aim.

But of course you jest Ouf.

Topicel

It's clear, you love EMI.
Why do you talk about Guinness Book Of Records 1972?
Since a few days ago, all our discussions came from Guinness Book Of Records 1971 and 133 million records sold by The Beatles by september 1970, and now you talking about Guinness Book Of Records 1972?
Another waste of time...or a real obsession against EMI.

[Topicel]

A big factor in this debate is the overseas releases, mentioned on the list Ouf presented:

http://www.freewebs.com/thebeatlesbeat2/

Kronemyer data from the sixties dealt specifically with capitol releases in the States, and would not cater for these releases on various labels Worldwide. Furthermore, documentation for sales figures for these releases would be less accessible than for, say, official EMI and Capitol album releases.

How many copies did records on these labels sell? We have already seen estimates of 15 million from Hanboo, there were at least 50 Beatles albums released on labels like Odeon, Polydor, etc, around the World. Here again is Hanboo's original estimates:

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/posting.php ... &p=2540789

Now you notice at the end of this Hanboo estimated that, of the 50 or so albums released on lesser known labels, a certain 12 albums would have sold around 10 million when sales of those 12 were combined together,and then he assumed that the other "48" could have sold about 100,000 copies each. Actually he made a mistake there - 50 minus 12 is 38, not 48!

15 million is a complete estimate by Hanboo - could it be higher than that? The bulk of these releases do seem to have taken place during the Beatles career, looking at Ouf's link, and even the ones that took place after the Beatles broke up were still released during an era when compilation albums were becoming more popular (e.g. seventies, eighties). An average figure of 100,000 for 38 of these albums, most of which were released at a time when the Beatles were at their most popular? That sounds a low average figure!!

And there are other factors. In 1986 Russia opened its doors for the first time to official purchasing of Beatles albums, and plenty of them were sold over there as well, according to press reports - 300,000 in one week, or something, according to one report.

Would these kind of figures be covered by EMI reports?

Personally, I can't see how the Beatles could have achieved the 350 million mark on single counting alone on the basis of just capital and emi releases. If you add other, less well known sales from other labels in, it might make that tiny bit of difference.............

Well everything you are saying here Cat would make splendid sense if - and I'm saying this without any bias, whatever any of you might think - we were talking about RCA or Columbia or any of the other big US outfits. Historically they all followed a typical American view of the rest of the world - that it wasn't that important to them, and what small amounts of business these far-flung places could offer would be tapped into by local licensing deals. Or they simply provided the records they could sell indirectly - hence the Military Post Exchanges; don't forget them...

But we are talking about EMI, a British company which brought with it a very different historical view of the rest of the world - one of Empire building by acquisition and outpost ownership. It all began over a century ago with the very earliest outlets being set up in the many Commonwealth nations, and spread - ironically with the assistance of RCA and Columbia - into the Americas and the Far East. By 1931, when EMI was formed by the merger of the old Gramophone and Graphaphone companies, there was hardly a country in the world that EMI didn’t have a presence.

The process was completed in 1955 with the acquisition of Capitol Records Inc. As the sun never set on the British Empire, a record pressing plant under EMI ownership was always churning out records somewhere in the world by this point at any time of day. The Second World War had caused major disruption of course and interests in Japan, Germany and Italy were naturally impacted in a negative way. However, as early as the summer of 1945 the company re-established its German business contacts and their Lindstrom factory soon began making and pressing records again on the Odeon, Imperial, Electrola and Columbia labels. In 1953 their two German businesses – Electrola and Carl Lindstrom - were merged to form EMI Electrola.

In France, EMI’s French subsidiary, Les Industries Musicales et Electriques Pathé Marconi SA, with offices in Paris and factories at Chatou, were reclaimed after the liberation of the country and the manufacture of records resumed. The Italian situation was the same. Control was reagined of the businesses previously seized by the fascists, and following more mergers manufacture, assembling and marketing of a range of products resumed.

Only in Japan were there some more practical difficulties, but contact was made with the Nippon Columbia Company and by 1951 a pressing agreement had been concluded between the two companies which in 1953 led to a further arrangement with Toshiba to exploit this market and in turn this partnership took the form of Toshiba-EMI, with EMI owning a controlling 55% of one of Japan’s largest record companies.

Finally, during the forties and fifties, EMI’s South American, Australasian, South African and Indian record businesses were rationalised. By 1962 EMI had extensive and un-paralled overseas operations with factories, marketing facilities and representation in more than 30 countries.

So consequently, you may talk about Odeon and other associated labels, but the vast majority were under the direct ownership or control of the EMI Group and all sales and business information from these separate entities was routed back to London and administered there. The licencing deals with the likes of Polydor, were but a drop in the proverbial ocean compared with the more famous ones with Vee-Jay, Swan etc. in the States, that arose due to the early ‘cloth-ears’ of the Capitol executives. It is this information, where the documentation was prepared and owned by outside parties, that has largely been lost – although fortunately the big numbers from the US licencees were clarified on record in the main due to court case records.

So when you say “furthermore, documentation for sales figures for these releases would be less accessible than for, say, official EMI and Capitol album releases”, it is very far from the truth. There is little that escaped the attentions of the EMI accounts and royalty departments in first, Manchester Square, and later, Brook Green – and I’ve seen the microfilm records of the latter to know it.

So, we have one outfit, EMI, with tentacles all over the world representing the Beatles, while on the other hand there were the giant US corporations who were quite happy in the main to be insular and concentrate on the market that in the forties provided 80% of the world’s record sales. It wasn’t until the sixties that the American giants began to abandon the idea of letting any old company licence their records to be pressed and distributed abroad and began to set up their own affiliated outlets and operations, attracted by the growth of the British and European record markets. Even so, it was a slow process and is one of the reasons RCA – for instance – is not in the same position as EMI with regards to documentation from this era.

So when you conclude Cat that “if you add other, less well known sales from other labels in, it might make that tiny bit of difference.....” you would be absolutely correct, so long as the emphasis is on that little word ‘tiny’. At least with regard to the objective of 350m albums!

Topicel

[blackcat]

A big factor in this debate is the overseas releases, mentioned on the list Ouf presented:

http://www.freewebs.com/thebeatlesbeat2/

Kronemyer data from the sixties dealt specifically with capitol releases in the States, and would not cater for these releases on various labels Worldwide. Furthermore, documentation for sales figures for these releases would be less accessible than for, say, official EMI and Capitol album releases.

How many copies did records on these labels sell? We have already seen estimates of 15 million from Hanboo, there were at least 50 Beatles albums released on labels like Odeon, Polydor, etc, around the World. Here again is Hanboo's original estimates:

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/posting.php ... &p=2540789

Now you notice at the end of this Hanboo estimated that, of the 50 or so albums released on lesser known labels, a certain 12 albums would have sold around 10 million when sales of those 12 were combined together,and then he assumed that the other "48" could have sold about 100,000 copies each. Actually he made a mistake there - 50 minus 12 is 38, not 48!

15 million is a complete estimate by Hanboo - could it be higher than that? The bulk of these releases do seem to have taken place during the Beatles career, looking at Ouf's link, and even the ones that took place after the Beatles broke up were still released during an era when compilation albums were becoming more popular (e.g. seventies, eighties). An average figure of 100,000 for 38 of these albums, most of which were released at a time when the Beatles were at their most popular? That sounds a low average figure!!

And there are other factors. In 1986 Russia opened its doors for the first time to official purchasing of Beatles albums, and plenty of them were sold over there as well, according to press reports - 300,000 in one week, or something, according to one report.

Would these kind of figures be covered by EMI reports?

Personally, I can't see how the Beatles could have achieved the 350 million mark on single counting alone on the basis of just capital and emi releases. If you add other, less well known sales from other labels in, it might make that tiny bit of difference.............

Well everything you are saying here Cat would make splendid sense if - and I'm saying this without any bias, whatever any of you might think - we were talking about RCA or Columbia or any of the other big US outfits. Historically they all followed a typical American view of the rest of the world - that it wasn't that important to them, and what small amounts of business these far-flung places could offer would be tapped into by local licensing deals. Or they simply provided the records they could sell indirectly - hence the Military Post Exchanges; don't forget them...

But we are talking about EMI, a British company which brought with it a very different historical view of the rest of the world - one of Empire building by acquisition and outpost ownership. It all began over a century ago with the very earliest outlets being set up in the many Commonwealth nations, and spread - ironically with the assistance of RCA and Columbia - into the Americas and the Far East. By 1931, when EMI was formed by the merger of the old Gramophone and Graphaphone companies, there was hardly a country in the world that EMI didn’t have a presence.

The process was completed in 1955 with the acquisition of Capitol Records Inc. As the sun never set on the British Empire, a record pressing plant under EMI ownership was always churning out records somewhere in the world by this point at any time of day. The Second World War had caused major disruption of course and interests in Japan, Germany and Italy were naturally impacted in a negative way. However, as early as the summer of 1945 the company re-established its German business contacts and their Lindstrom factory soon began making and pressing records again on the Odeon, Imperial, Electrola and Columbia labels. In 1953 their two German businesses – Electrola and Carl Lindstrom - were merged to form EMI Electrola.

In France, EMI’s French subsidiary, Les Industries Musicales et Electriques Pathé Marconi SA, with offices in Paris and factories at Chatou, were reclaimed after the liberation of the country and the manufacture of records resumed. The Italian situation was the same. Control was reagined of the businesses previously seized by the fascists, and following more mergers manufacture, assembling and marketing of a range of products resumed.

Only in Japan were there some more practical difficulties, but contact was made with the Nippon Columbia Company and by 1951 a pressing agreement had been concluded between the two companies which in 1953 led to a further arrangement with Toshiba to exploit this market and in turn this partnership took the form of Toshiba-EMI, with EMI owning a controlling 55% of one of Japan’s largest record companies.

Finally, during the forties and fifties, EMI’s South American, Australasian, South African and Indian record businesses were rationalised. By 1962 EMI had extensive and un-paralled overseas operations with factories, marketing facilities and representation in more than 30 countries.

So consequently, you may talk about Odeon and other associated labels, but the vast majority were under the direct ownership or control of the EMI Group and all sales and business information from these separate entities was routed back to London and administered there. The licencing deals with the likes of Polydor, were but a drop in the proverbial ocean compared with the more famous ones with Vee-Jay, Swan etc. in the States, that arose due to the early ‘cloth-ears’ of the Capitol executives. It is this information, where the documentation was prepared and owned by outside parties, that has largely been lost – although fortunately the big numbers from the US licencees were clarified on record in the main due to court case records.

So when you say “furthermore, documentation for sales figures for these releases would be less accessible than for, say, official EMI and Capitol album releases”, it is very far from the truth. There is little that escaped the attentions of the EMI accounts and royalty departments in first, Manchester Square, and later, Brook Green – and I’ve seen the microfilm records of the latter to know it.

So, we have one outfit, EMI, with tentacles all over the world representing the Beatles, while on the other hand there were the giant US corporations who were quite happy in the main to be insular and concentrate on the market that in the forties provided 80% of the world’s record sales. It wasn’t until the sixties that the American giants began to abandon the idea of letting any old company licence their records to be pressed and distributed abroad and began to set up their own affiliated outlets and operations, attracted by the growth of the British and European record markets. Even so, it was a slow process and is one of the reasons RCA – for instance – is not in the same position as EMI with regards to documentation from this era.

So when you conclude Cat that “if you add other, less well known sales from other labels in, it might make that tiny bit of difference.....” you would be absolutely correct, so long as the emphasis is on that little word ‘tiny’. At least with regard to the objective of 350m albums!

Topicel

Yes, I am impressed by your knowledge in this area, and from what you say, I am sure that all these sales are written down somewhere. However, what I would like to know is whether sales analysts like the ones on this forum have accurate figures themselves as regarding these "other EMI" label sales, and have accurate information as regarding sales on labels like the Russian owned label, and then outside labels like Polydor. That's the question here.

It does seem quite amazing to me how EMI apparently have everything documented, but RCA seem to be oh so lacking in that area! LOL!

God, RCA must have been so inefficient in their record keeping!

[blackcat]

Still going through this link you gave us, Ouf! Certainly some interesting stuff.

Looking at the e.p. section, tons and tons of E.P.s released in Mexico. I guess the Mexicans liked their extended plays!

And one E.P., from the Seargent Pepper album, released in Spain in 1967, the year the album was released. First time I have come across the Pepper album tracks being released on a 45 disc in the same year that the album was released.

Fascinating stuff!

And here we return to Kronemyer indirectly again Cat because while he doesn't deal with EPs there were some albums that Capitol were responsible for that were issued in Mexico that require some consideration.

In other words, did Capitol 'export' to Mexico? And as usual with me, the apostrophes are intended. There are subtle business and accounting ties here too that need clarification I would think.

Personally I couldn't give a fig, but as with all such matters someone will be interested in the ramifications, whatever they may be. Happy digging!

Topicel

Surely the question here is not whether Capital exported lp's or eps to Mexico, the question here is whether these Mexican sales, Spanish sales, and other less well known ep and lp sales are always taken into the equations when calculating all-time Beatles sales on this forum. As you yourself say, some of this requires consideration.