Topicel wrote:As this has also been posted here, correctly, I thought it right to add the following observations - analysis on this occasion would be stretching it, I suspect! - from the Presley US thread.borderwolf wrote:from the book
The Global JukeBox: The International Music Industry
(by Robert Burnett)
Album sales by dead artists in U.S.A. during 1992:
Elvis Presley : 1,500,000
The Doors : 1,000,000
Jimi Hendrix : 900,000
Bob Marley : 550,000
Roy Orbison : 500,000
Janis Joplin : 400,000Borderwolf has added that the book he was quoting claimed the totals came from a source described as "record company estimates".Topicel wrote:Thanks Borderwolf. Is there any more explanation regarding these totals? I mean, does the author expand on where they came from, Soundscan perhaps or another source?
The first thing that strikes me is not the Elvis total so much, but the Bob Marley number. In addition to the inevitable presence of 'Legend' (actually spending over half of 1992 in the Billboard Catalogue Top 5), Marley had a 'new' album 'Songs Of Freedom' cracking the main Billboard Top 200 albums in the last quarter, peaking at No. 86. Combined I would expect a bigger total than 550k.
That then led me to consider the others. To lesser degrees the Doors and Joplin totals appear optimistic, but in the case of the former, compilation packages do proliferate so it is almost as hard to tell as with Elvis, lol. Janis Joplin however is rarely compiled, and I find that her only package of note 'Greatest Hits' can't have managed even the 400k claimed for her based on the reported catalogue chart performance...and the same applies to the 'Big O', although at year-end he had a comp just peak into the Top 200 called 'King Of Hearts'.
As for Jimi Hendrix shifting 900k, well, it is probably the worst of the lot. His 'Smash Hits' did a little worse than Janis' 'Greatest Hits' in the Catalogue chart in 1992, so it is perplexing in many ways how any of this makes sense.
Which brings us back to Elvis, seeing as it's his thread. The major 'new' release was the 50s package, and then a fresh Xmas perennial 'Blue Christmas' showed up on the Cat chart along with the initial Xmas Album and the opening 'Hits Album' salvo from 1957 'Golden Records'. But as we know, the sheer size of the 'king's' catalogue makes it nigh on impossible to judge whether 1.5m is reasonable or not!
Anyway, just some idle thoughts. If you have more specific info from the book pertaining to these claims it would be appreciated.
I am reminded of my mantra that 'thinking too much while studying to present a significant history can often lead to unreliable, ill-considered and un-trustworthy data". Mr. Burnett's no doubt otherwise excellent thesis seems to be a case in point.
In to Room 101 it goes.