can't sleep?; listen to "Reach Out and Touch"....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
can't sleep?; listen to "Reach Out and Touch"....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Just one question~~~ Wouldn't Mr. Gordy had to report this income of sales to the IRS ? or are we thinking he lied on his income taxes as well ? Just a thought.
Yes, but Motown Record Corporation and Jobete and other entities would pay Berry Gordy and others wages and dividends............and he would report those. It wouldn't have shown that certain records sold certain amounts.
Motown Record Corporation would have filed a corporate tax return showing income less expenses but there would be no reference to sales of individual records.
Wasn't there a volume of something like 10,000 pages produced which detailed a lot of Motown sales which was used in some business case involving Michael Jackson in Detroit around 1990 which was brought into Court?
I wonder would this be a matter of public interest and be available to view if requested?
If I thought so I would even take a holiday in Detroit!!
I'm sure one of the authors of some Motown book did use some of the documentation submitted in Court for the HDH suit...........maybe it was Peter Benajminson; maybe it was Posner; maybe Randy. I'm not sure how available any of it is after all these years and there are generally costs to search it. I don't believe any of it is available on line. Some of it might be sealed and unavailable.
Who lives in Detroit? Wayne County? They could call and ask. I know one of those books printed a copy of the Statement of Claim or the Writ.
And perhaps some of these other suits might reveal something; from what I've heard and read, none of the suits go very far before there is some settlement.
Wayne County does NOT live in Detroit,and these days, she is Jayne County!!!
http://music.aol.com/artist/jayne-county?flv=1
correct, but then, in the Motown universe, does that matters?...lol
Overlooked this post Florence, sorry.
Yep, there is obviously missing documentation, that is a no-brainer! It don't put as back at square one at all though as the certs that have been awarded are fully justifiable and fit perfectly with the numbers that were REALLY being sold/shipped in the sixties. The reality is one million copies was only achievable by anyone other than the Beatles [[and even they didn't manage it every time!) if freebies were included and before returns hit.
It would be perfectly acceptable to believe each of the Supremes No. 1 hits merited a gold disc [[or a modern platinum) in theory and had Mr. Gordy been willing to open the books to the auditors at the time I don't doubt that would have happened. All that has happened since is based on the paperwork that did survive for those releases Universal deemed it worthwhile presenting to the RIAA auditors in 97 and 99 etc, or had gotten around to. And clearly these releases - if we assume, as I do, that the original shipments were over one million gross - went back below the seven-figure level.
This applies to everyone, and isn't Supremes-centric. The sad thing is Motown didn't join the scheme until 1981 or so. I'm sure what you feel is or isn't right will actually be pretty shrewd in the end.
I don't believe Gordy and his associates could hide the figures and not pay the contractual royalties. It all has to go through the books. The contracts were lousy, as they were for many other acts and professions. Look how boxers got ripped off!
No, it was obvious to all within the industry that Motown wanted to promote their own successes and not have any independent outfit like the RIAA come in and nit-pick about what they were claiming. Gold records and awards of that nature were good publicity and media events - as you point out about Nathan Jones for instance. It was why the RIAA scheme was set up because there were so many bogus claims in the 50s that the whole thing was devalued in the eyes of the public.
'In-house' awards, as they were called, were always a publicity tool, Motown, probably with good reason as they were just starting out, wanted to blow their own trumpet and in many cases they were probably fully justified. But we'll never know exactly which were 'genuine' million-sellers and which weren't now - except for those few Universal awards that slipped out before someone realised that it was running contrary to the 'story' that had been told originally.
Thanks for those kind words jobeterob. You and Flo are intrinsically right about it all being taken with a pinch of salt, but I do take issue with the idea that no-one has a clue what got sold. We have, as I've mentioned before, plenty of contemporary and subsequent evidence of shipments and sales awards from the RIAA across all acts to make very good judgements as to the likely sales ranges of the big hits. And then there are the various hit parades that were - for all their faults and foibles and radio airplay factors - pretty accurate on the whole at the top end where these million-sellers obviously inhabit.
As long as we way up everything equally and even-handedly, throw in some other bona-fide data that has come to light from record company leaks and the like [[that can be trusted!), then it is easy to arrive at a fair guestimate of the overall success of all the major singles acts in total, and reasonably so per release.
Some of us have a better advantage with access to more information than others [[Hotspurman is one it seems), but providing we are truthful and don't cheat by rationalising upwards for our own personal likes and downwards for our dislikes - not that easy mind you! - then it is possible.
Exactly right jobeterob. The Corporation is entirely separate for tax purposes and no IRS official would care less what each record sold. They would only be interested in the earnings and how they are made up, and in a business like that it will be rather complex!
Where the facts and figures would be reported would be to the music publishers [[who represent the songwriters), and the artist management. As so much was kept within Motown there was plenty of room for crafty, some might say dodgy, dealings. But make no mistake everyone, the paper trail will always have been clear as to the number of records pressed and issued from the contracted factories and also all the returns and other side-deals for freebies will also have been carefully noted.
What has happened to the Motown artists is no different to many others in the preceeding decades. They were taken advantage of, in much the same way that big business always has and still does [[anyone joining the Wall Street camps?). All I'm saying is that no matter how sneaky Motown were at the time in the end they couldn't hide the bigger picture as painted by Billboard, RIAA or what has come out over the years concerning other acts of the era as to what they must've been selling.
And it seems in almost all cases the numbers - surprise, surprise - were hyped up to be bigger than they actually were presented or thought to have been.
Not sure of these particular suits jobeterob, but again many cases that have been fought over the years have been reported and numbers come out that in the round tell us again that the figures were lower than generally believed. The same will apply to Motown, and mostly the settlements are to perpetuate the myths as much as squabble over the pennies. The 'brand' is worth more.
For instance, take the Beatles many cases with Capitol. Information has come out about their sales as a result and - unless we're really in denial - we must accept they are the biggest band from the 60s and so everyone else must have sold fewer, no? Well much of what happened to them prior to 1966 involved the use of freebies to avoid royalties, and for sure Motown would've played that card bigtime. It is little known, but freebies were discounted by the RIAA until late 1965, so obviously Gordy would have had no intention of bringing in the auditors only to have them say, "ok, we found 1.2m shipments but 400k were free so no gold".
These freebie records were obviously to keep the acts from earning what they should've and also to attract the One Stop accounts Motown needed 'on-side' in the early days.
Finally got back to this jobeterob, which should bring the curtain down on all those fanciful ideas on here about 'Stoned Love' selling three million. Here are some observations about the Ross/Richie smash.
Once more we can only go by what we know, and ‘Endless Love’ was not a triple platinum or anything in those Universal RIAA certifications in the late 90s of dozens of Motown hits, and surely it must have been tempting to upgrade it if it was a genuine claim? As it seems they could go back to 1962 – the Marvelettes and ‘Please Mr. Postman’ – with satisfactory shipment info for their retrospective award applications, it is hard to believe that the 1980s paperwork was lost for ‘Endless Love’. That is all down to how you view these things; I am somewhat cynical and confess to knowing that the labels like to keep the urban myth numbers out there, and so don’t want to mess with a good story. If three million is the accepted wisdom for ‘Endless Love’ [[kinda kicks that figure into a cocked hat for ‘Stoned Love’ again btw), let’s leave well alone was probably their thinking. After all, it already had a platinum award which at the time represented two million shipments if you recall.
So why didn’t they take the opportunity to upgrade to double platinum, especially as the retrospective awards were being allowed on the new levels in force since Jan 1 1989? Again we have clues if we look for them hard enough. The single originally hit gold [[don’t forget this was for a million shipments then, and definitely not retail sales) on 21st August 1981, a week or so after it was first on top of the Hot 100 on 15/8/81. As I say this is no science, but quite obviously the shipments are always way ahead of the demand, while at the same time the chart is reflecting an earlier period than the published date. It is hard to get one’s head around, but realistically the record had been the nation’s top selling single since about August 3, and if you then understand that similarly the shipment passing a million likely covered the same length of foreward demand period, then the chart that truly reflects when it went through the one million shipment barrier isn’t until the Hot 100 published 5th September – by which time it had been No. 1 for a month and realistically for longer.
If you’ve followed this in the badly-phrased way I’ve worded it you’ve done amazingly! If you have then basically you should see that we have a good idea that it needed about half of the time ‘Endless Love’ was No. 1 for it to really be bought by one million people. But as we know it was [[sickeningly?) popular and remained on top for as long again, finally being dethroned on 17th October 1981, after nine long weeks at the summit [[not ten as the Hitsville booklet wrongly stated), by the equally sacharine ‘Arthur’s Theme’ by Christopher Cross. Now the interesting part is the RIAA platinum award for two million shipments was announced just a day before on 16th October, which as before really takes us up to the end of the month in chart representation terms, by which time it was getting ready to slip down to No. 5 and its last week in the Top Ten.
Now another fact that isn’t readily appreciated is how once a record starts to slip down the charts it in fact generally becomes a net loser for the label. In other words the returns outweigh the remaining demand as dealers and public alike move on to the next smasheroo. So all the evidence indicates that Motown were keen to achieve the platinum feat – and indeed why not? – but it really was a case of stumbling over the line. The returns over the following weeks didn’t mean the award wasn’t won genuinely but it completely explains why there was no attempt to increase to triple platinum by Universal in the late 90s, nor even to re-confirm the double platinum that it looked on the face of it could have been granted.
By way of a contemporary note, it should be noted the charts and single sales had slowed and stagnated after the late seventies madness. There were a fair number of long residencies at the top of the Hot 100 and yet only one other managed platinum for two million, the media-frenzy inducing ‘Physical’ by ONJ. Now that DID stick around for ten weeks on top of the Hot 100, and did so throughout the aforementioned Xmas period for peak consumer buying. This monster still only shipped its two millionth copy on 5th January 1982, having been at No. 1 since November 21, so as I’ve said before two million is in itself a really big deal in US singles history. Oh, and that Chris Cross ‘Arthur’s Theme’ didn’t ship a million for gold until 7th January 1982!
All of which underscores the logical conclusion that ‘Endless Love’ never sold three million in the US, and therefore the only valid conclusion jobeterob is yours that the figure can only be global.
well, if all these records sold only 100,000 each, how did Mr. Gordy manage to build his castles everywhere and pay off all those radio guys to not play the Florence Ballard singles?.......from live performances/shows revenue?..where was the empire building money coming from?
Very interesting..Thanks for the very interesting comments..Paulo xxx
Would someone please, please, please give us answer to these question. I need to sleep.
I also need to get out on my route and make some deliveries.
Penny;)
I didn't say that I believe these things, these are things that I've read...young lady!...lol
but I'm still curious, where was the money coming from if record sales were so meager...
Well Roberta75, I guess JimiLaLumia isn't a great stats guy either as no-one is saying 100,000 each! I reckon [[hope?) it's all tongue-in-cheek...
Basically the US record industry is full of bull*hit and we have been misled by labels, managers and media [[and still are of course) with all manner of record sales hype and dollars earnt crap. It makes for good copy, and let's face it only saddos like me bother with the detail, and then we expect to get shouted down for our troubles.
I feel sorry for that Galileo who kept telling them Europeans 400-odd years ago that the world wasn't flat but round...not sure if he got set light to for his troubles or not. Gulp.
So whether its Elvis' or the Beatles' fans who are adamant that 'It's Now Or Never' or 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' both shifted five million in the States, or Motown admirers with their daydreams, the truth is that all are in cloud cuckoo land.
But hey, it don't ultimately matter much, and that big old [[round) world of ours will keep on turning whatever you choose to believe. But you'd be better of in this instance to believe me. Lol.
Since you ask I will get the figures for you, Strange although it may be a few days as I'm particularly busy at the minute.
I had decided not to bother because in the long run it's not going to throw any light on the matter.
The whole Supremes' sales controversy is even more in the quagmire now.
I found your information on the 60s sales very enlightening and it looks probable that their sales are not as big as many think - Joseph Murrell's seems to have been quite gullible!!! I always knew about returns but wouldn't have thought they would have been to such an extent.
Certainly the list that was posted on Answerbag with Baby Love at 3.5m, My World Is Empty at 1m+ etc looks utter rubbish but then.......................
I did wonder if my information that when the certification levels were lowered even records released before that date could be certified under the new criteria was wrong but then you would have picked that up and I have re-confirmed it.
It would have explained why despite some claims that Where Did Our Love Go outsold Baby Love it eventually got certified. If WDOLG shipped 1m+ but then had enormous returns dealers would not have taken as many copies of BL so it didn't ship as many but then didn't have big returns and so actually sold more. However, I digress, this is hypothetical.
It would seem that Universal started first with the Diana Supremes and either there was a lot of documentation missing or the records just didn't sell the required numbers but there were only a handful of certifications.
Then when they moved on to The Temptations a large slice of their catalogue did receive awards. But why would they have the documentation for the Temptations and not The Supremes?
It would seem then that they decided not to go any further with claiming back certifications which would affect Stoned Love or Diana's solo biggies if they sold the required amount. One million is debatable but it would be hard to believe for example Touch Me In The Morning didn't do at least 500k.
The Supremes' singles raced to the top of the charts but then dropped quickly too which can be deceptive, records which rise and fall slowly and linger in the upper regions of the chart without going right to the top can be bigger sellers. So maybe a lot of their singles didn't do 1m net but it is hard ro believe that many of them would not have done 500k. I always go back to Love Child.
Anyway, I don't think it will make anything clearer but I will get the figures shortly.
Still looking at Stoned Love and I see your logic but there is something amiss there. A couple of UK chart watchers I have contacted so far are with the higher figure.
Florence, I agree... many times there is no correlation between peak chart positions and sales. Take a non-Supremes example: Ted Nugent's album "Scream Dream" peaked at number 13 on the billboard album chart, and has been certified gold..... the album "Cat Scratch Fever" only topped out at number 17... 4 positions lower, but has been certified TRIPLE PLATINUM. Just some food for thought, and a random comparison.
Jill - we are not talking about albums. They have a completely different shelf-life and sales spectrum, not to mention their market simply grew and grew over the years under discussion.
For singles, if you really have a thorough knowledge of all the variations such as era, seasonality, popularity etc., and a good sprinkling of trustworthy sales reports, industry sales data and awards information, then it is very possible to set some realistic sales parameters based on chart achievements for the biggest hits. Certainly Top 10 and above, and probably Top 20 and below too. Even the RIAA have big gaps between awards and then will have us believe that tallying all those up can not only provide onlookers with an acts total sales but even rank them against others.
It's semi-serious fun; it isn't a science as I've said before, but then what is? [[Lol, apart from science! Anyone know what the God Particle is yet? Ha.)
Florence .. being a "UK Chart Watcher" of sorts I can easily believe the higher US figures because I can compare them with their UK sales. This is on one assumption and two known facts.
I "assume" that the UK sales figures that I have seen for the various Motown hits, such as those in your "30 biggest selling UK Motown singles" thread are reasonably correct, as the UK charts were always sales based and so "rough" sales figures would be known from the data used to compile the British charts.
I "know" that back in the mid-late '60s the population of the US was approximately four times that of the UK [[around 50 Million in the UK and 200 million in the US) and I also "know" that in the '60s wages etc. were significantly higher in the US than in the UK and so there was a lot more disposable income around in the US than in the UK.
The Top 30 selling UK Motown singles list has "Baby Love" selling 500000 copies in the UK .. though this may include some sales from the 1974 reissue. The 1964 UK chart run of "Baby Love" seems very similar to its US Billboard "Hot 100" run .. in the UK "Baby Love" spent fifteen weeks on the chart with two of those at number one, in the US "Baby Love spent thirteen weeks on the "Hot 100" with four of those at number one.
The UK figure of 500000 sales for "Baby Love" seem totally in line to me with reported sales of other UK #1 hits in that 1964/5 period, and even if it does include the 1974 reissue that would still indicate to me that the 1964 UK release sold 400000.
So .. I don't find it hard to believe that "Baby Love" might have sold 3 Million in the US in 1964 if, with a similar chart run in Britain, it managed to sell 400000 at the same time .. If I take the lower UK figure of 400000, multiply that by four [[to take in account the difference in US/UK population) and then add 50% to take into account differences in disposable income it comes out as 2.4 Million .. if I take the higher UK figure of 500000 and do the same it actually does come out as 3 Million.
Roger
Please do bother Florence! Any and all figures should be given an airing, they are very often suspect and come with an 'agenda', but not always and in that regard I feel JRT's numbers can be considered. He does have some credentials/contacts, even though he is also a possible 'puppet' too. The comments about Joseph Murrels are a case in point. His work on the original 'Book of Golden Discs' is imho the chart and sales hobbyist's 'bible', and yet as you point out it is shown to be flawed in many respects.
It doesn't make him gullible I don't think, because when he worked and collated all this info [[the 40s, 50s and 60s mainly) he was no more than a journalist with contacts too - and there was no internet don't forget. What he put together was astonishing and held sway for years [[in some fan-centric quarters it still does/will), and only the likes of you and me can maybe spot the problems in what he reported. Don't forget also that all his material was gleaned from the trade papers and record company press releases; he could only do so much with what he had.
As for the Supremes quagmire, well that isn't the case at all providing a dose of realism is applied.
The Answerbag list is rubbish, no need to equivocate about it imho. Trust me, there is no other answer save a conspiracy theory concerning such malpractice and involving so many people that it would be right up there with the JFK and Moon-landing cover-ups!
And yes, the RIAA awards are now retrospective since that reduction in criteria at 1/1/89 to 500k shipment for gold and re-naming the million shipment as platinum. We had so many upgrades and re-certs from all the labels that it is again quite easy to work through them all and see what the original shipment patterns vis-a-vis the charts and different eras/seasons etc. must have been. Within reason. Some issues as you say could be 'hypothetical', but we aren't [[or shouldn't be) trying to tie things down to the 'nth degree, but we can make very good educated guesses about 'Baby Love' and WDOLG. It is a pain that Motown didn't want to have independent RIAA auditers look at their books - but plenty of companies/labels did and as I pointed out there were still only seven confirmed million-unit shipments in the whole of 1964 and four of those were the Beatles! It is pretty clear to me that 'Baby Love' has been correctly certified at over 500k and beneath 1m. Anyone else thinking otherwise needs to open the book of conspiracy theories again!
As for the order of the retrospective Universal certs, you may well be right that they went backwards. I'm less interested in that than the certs themselves that did make it and the level the reached; when compared with the Columbia re-cert programme on singles for instance, or those of other labels, we can easily see that the idea of incomplete or 'missing' paperwork isn't necessarily watertight. Anyway, as you say, there should have been plenty of golds for 500k for sure - including TMITM - and for whatever reason they pulled the plug on the whole shooting match.
If someone would like to pop in here and say why they believe Stoned Love is that higher 355k figure, it would maybe make it more interesting for everyone...
It is interesting how easy it is for people to fall into the population ratios and proportionality traps when attempting to estimate sales around the world. I was that man once too, so I can perfectly understand how you've rationalised things here Roger.
On the face of it your basic numbers are correct and the arithmetic is faultless - but one key ingredient is missing that I gave particular attention to in an earlier post on the Top 30 Motown UK Singles thread - the actual shipment data of singles. This was what I said then - ironically in response to your own correct observation about British silver discs - in post number 76:
Now of course that is only half the story, and taking your population proportion/ratio theory we would actually expect US single unit shipments to be approaching 300m, but in fact the RIAA estimate for 1964 is just 99m!
As I say, your calculations on the face of things look fine to the layman, but the reality is that the market for singles in the States had been steadily declining since 1958, whereas the opposite was true in the UK. The Beatles/Merseybeat inspired boom was truly astonishing. Why, well apart from a traditional love of the single in Britain it is probably your observation about relative wealth of the two nations that explains it; the Brits simply couldn't afford an album whereas the more affluent Americans were able to spend more of their disposable income on the 33rpm.
This doesn't mean proportionality and ratios can work based on the unit production and shipment data of any given time, of course it doesn't [[and I explained part of the difficulties later in that post I refer to if you missed it or care to revisit it). But it is the most important detail when considering the various factors at play in the general overview of the relative market sizes.
As I say, I also fell for the population comparative argument for many years until studying statistical principles made me realise the error of my ways. Another way of looking at it for a country as vast as the States is to look at regional or local stats [[again, as I erroneously once did) and then extrapolate upwards for a national figure. So say a Billboard report said a single shipped 75k in Chicago, well in my youthful mind I checked the population of greater Chicago and worked up to a US-wide possible total.
Blimey, did I have some multi-platinum sellers by the time I was finished! And I believed it made perfect sense too...
I still say that singles sales did not start declining in favor of LPS until 1968 not 1958 in the USA.Motown was the number 1 label in singles sales in the 60's.This was the word from Schwartz Bros. distributors[[one of the biggest in the NE) and Tone Distributors[[one of the biggest if not the biggest in the SE).
Well motony, you are quite right, that singles sales hadn't declined below album & tape sales until 1968. I confirmed this particular statistical breakthrough in another post the other day was in the last quarter of 1967 I recall.
But that is not at issue here. The 'declining' that is of note in this discussion is that of singles as a whole in the US compared with the UK, and as an aside the reason for the decrease in the singles/album sales ratio of the two countries was probably the greater wealth enjoyed in the States to be able to buy more LPs than the still relatively impoverished [[due to WWII) British.
As for the Motown label being the No. 1 singles label in the States, that isn't at issue either. Again I mentioned the other day that it wasn't so much the individual sales that caused this as the greater percentage of hits from the number of releases. On average a label is pleased with a ratio [[yes, it is good to use this here!) of one Top 100 success out of 13 or so releases. Motown at their peak were able - because of superb A&R, writing and production control to achieve a 1:4 home run conversion rate. Possibly even better at certain peak times!
The roster of star names and hit singles makes the distributor claims pretty obvious to me and you, if not to the layman. By comparison, take away Elvis from RCA and the Beatles from Capitol and what have you got? Not a lot really [[I know, Beach Boys and, err, the Guess Who...?! respectively). Let's be serious!
But that again isn't the issue - the issue is the multi-million sellers that just weren't.
A very interesting post there Strange [[Your Post #190).
I'd be very interested to know where I can find the stated cumulative figure for U.S. singles sales in 1964 of just 99 Million.
To me this figure seems astonishingly low, especially set against the U.K. figure you state of just under 73 Million [[which is close to my guestimate of 80 Million).
I would have thought that U.S. singles sales in this period would have been much higher and I've been busy googling trying to find some clues.
The nearest I've come to any success is an article I've found about Japanese Sales in Billboard, dated 19th December 1970.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m...page&q&f=false
In this it states that in 1969 "singles sales in Japan were 0.7 units per capita, whereas in the U.S. and U.K. they were about 1.0.
So, if Billboard in 1970 is to believed the total sales of singles in the U.S. in 1969 were around the 200 Million figure and in the U.K. they were around the 50 Million mark.
This seems broadly speaking correct with the U.K. figures you quote of between 46 and 47 Million, so it seems logical to assume their U.S. estimate is correct as well.
However, something seems wrong here as this 1969 U.S. figure is double the amount you state as being the total for 1964, yet the consensus of opinion is that in 1960s America they were in steady decline! Are we all wrong?
I also found this interesting article on the breaking of THE BEATLES in the U.S. which occurred in 1964 ..
http://www.pophistorydig.com/?p=3421
An interesting comments in this is that ..
"They [[The Beatles) had 15 separate recordings in 1964 - nine singles and six albums - that each sold 1 million or more copies, representing total Beatle sales in the U.S. that one year of more than 25 million copies".
Which means that at the absolute minimum THE BEATLES sold 9 Million singles in 1964, and as the article states figures for "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as 3.4 Million by the end of March, with "Can't Buy Me Love" selling 2.1 Million at that time it looks like the cumulative total for Beatles singles sold in the U.S. in 1964 is much higher.
It doesn't leave much for everyone else does it, though the article does state that in the first quarter of 1964 THE BEATLES accounted for a staggering 60% of U.S. record sales.
One BEATLES record that could give a pointer to the sales of "Baby Love" is THE BEATLES last hit prior to "Baby Love" .. "A Hard Day's Night" which the article states was certified gold for exceeding sales of more than 1 million copies on 25th August 1964.
Now, in terms of Billboard Chart numbers "A Hard Day's Night" was a lesser hit than "Baby Love" .. here are the figures for their respective Billboard Hot 100 chart runs.
"Hard Days Night" .. 18th July 1964 .. 13 weeks on the charts, 2 at #1 .. 1st August and 8th August.
"Baby Love" .. 3rd October 1964 .. 13 weeks on the charts, 4 at #1 .. 31st Oct, 7th Nov, 14th Nov 21st Nov.
It seems to me incredibly unlikely that a record that was at #1 for two weeks in August of 1964 actually sold significantly more than one that was #1 for virtually all of November 1964, so on that basis alone I would be astounded if "Baby Love" hadn't reached the Million mark in the U.S. by the end of 1964.
Which brings me back to the original subject of this thread .. the U.S. sales of "Stoned Love" in 1971.
If the Billboard assertation that singles sales per Capita in the U.S. and the U.K. in 1969 were approximately the same then it seems likely that there was little divergence by early 1971 and maybe we could use my "proportioning" idea to interpolate U.S. sales.
Florence's list has U.K. sales of "Stoned Love" as 355000, and as it had only one U.K. chart run virtually all of that would have to be in 1971.
So .. if "Stoned Love" had been just as big a hit in the U.S. as it was in the U.K. then it would seem likely that U.S. sales were in the 1.4 to 1.5 Million range.
In pure chart terms "Stoned Love" was actually a slightly bigger hit in the U.K. [[13 weeks peaking at #3) than on the Billboard Hot 100 [[14 weeks peaking at #7) but even this to me indicate that U.S. sales in excess of a Million were very likely.
Interesting thread this isn't it!!
Roger ..
Sorry, Roger I was referring to the UK when I mentioned the higher sales figure for Stoned Love.
The problem is whether the UK figure is right - Strange has a perfectly logical point when he says that a Silver Disc was never claimed but there's something odd here and I'm trying to follow a couple of different leads.
I think the UK figure of circa 500k for Baby Love is reasonably accurate - as you say it was a very big hit here in 1964 and would have sold in the high 300s/low 400s, then its 10-week run peaking at #12 could have been around 80k. It's one of the Supremes' singles which could have sold an additional few thousand copies over the years plus a few on Download.
The figure given includes sales from both chart runs - in the case of Baby Love it had the same B-side unlike others in the list so there can be no argument over that.
I'm not sure you can correlate the figures in the UK to the US but unless you discount everything Strange says it wouldn't look to have sold anywhere near 3m in the US.
Interestingly The Top 10 Of Music published in the UK in 1992 has Baby Love as the fifth biggest selling single of 1964 in the US [[behind four Beatles singles but ahead of A Hard Day's Night) - unfortunately there is no information given as to where they got this information but they do say their statistics are based primarily [[hmmm) on sales.
Ha guys, equally stimulating responses! I am impressed with the interest and understanding shown and maybe it is time we started a specific thread devoted to all these chart and sales topics that are - to me anyway - fascinating.
For instance, Florence says she's still following up a couple of angles for 'Stoned Love' and so maybe I should bring this post below over here as it might have been missed?
Any guesses about the other silver?
I'll attempt to explain my theories some more, and answer your latest observations Roger and Florence, in the fullness of time!
Interceding a bit here, but I think Roger was aware that you were talking about the UK sales of 'Stoned Love', at least that was my understanding from where he went with his original post. Anyway, apart from what I'm hoping to show about the real [[at least as far as we know based on RIAA data) single sales of individual titles in the States, the same can be estimated within reason - never certainty! - based on the UK award schemes and chart comparisons. As Roger has rightly said, the UK has always had a very strong sales-based reliability in its hit parade results, even way back when in the 60s!
Hopefully the additional awards I posted above are of use in that regard?
I see that downloads are being included in your commentary now Florence regarding 'Baby Love'. I would be unable to add much about those and as I've hinted before to me they are whims or spur-of-the-moment purchases and just track based to boot, so let's not include them in the debate. It is confusing enough as it it! The physical format [[preferably only including the original release and its identical reissues) is what I care about; I'll be dead and gone by the time all these records are consigned to history by the instant gratification of digital sales so let's not go there - please?
That aside, the logic I would ask you to consider this time is the reality that the sales awards schemes were of sufficient worth and merit publicity-wise to the artist/management/label that they were keen to claim them as soon as they could? That is my opinion of these certifications anyway, be they the UK style of self-cert or the US audit-check variety. They were something to achieve, a recognition of success within the industry and beyond. If that wasn't the case then why would Motown or others before [[and after) bother with 'in-house' awards? Therefore I submit that they were both important and applied for as soon as possible after the appropriate level had been reached - 250,000 copies in Great Britain.
Ok, if that is where I'm coming from [[and with some conviction I might add...), I would ask you to now re-consider your "high 300s/low 400s" conclusion for the original chart performance of 'Baby Love' when set against the silver disc announcement date of 5th December, at which time the single had slipped from No. 1 to No. 3 in its seventh charted week, and then it went 8, 10, 15. I know you are aware that the chart is but a snapshot in time of an earlier sales period Florence, so all it leaves us to really consider is the position that 'Baby Love' was really at in shipment terms - no, not retail sales - as of December 5. I'd say that it was probably in-between Nos 8 & 10, but realistically it was finished as a major popular selling single as far as the EMI marketing folk were concerned, even if the public still picked up a further 10-20k into and thru Xmas.
We are all three [[you, me and Roger) agreed that the 'Baby Love' re-issue is the same pairing as the original and so the 1974 sales should be legitimately counted [[although it isn't for us to say, sadly!). If anyone follows the logic of what I'm saying it joins 'Stoned Love' as being another inaccurate entry in that Motown list - that is unless we up the 1974 version to nearer 200-plus thousand!
If anyone wants to have the chapter and verse on Ash/Crampton [[and Lazell) as per your Top Ten of Music observations then I'll be happy to bore you...
I can't believe I'm going to contribute to a sales and charts thread, but here it goes. Isn't the Billboard Singles chart standings a compilation of both sales and radio airplay? So Baby Love could have had its #1 because of radio spins, not due to #1 in sales. Also, even if it's based soley on sales from the reporting period, perhaps A Hard Day's Night sold, let's say 200k the first week at #1 and 175k the 2nd week at #1, but by the time Baby Love hit number one, it did not with less cumulative sales over its 4 week reign than A Hard Day's Night did in its 2 week run? Just speculation. In the end, both songs survived and are both iconic [[if overplayed) songs for each act.
Fair enough point regarding Billboard but neither Cashbox [[at that stage) nor Record World included any airplay in its charts and Baby Love was #1 on both of them.
As you say though the chart position in any one week doesn't indicate the levels of sales - all it tells you is that a particular record was the best , second best etc selling record in that week.
The list includes all sales up to the end of 2008.
This obviously will include Downloads plus any singles sold from when the EPOS machines were introduced. It could very well be that because they were back catalogue many not have been recorded when the BMRB Diaries were written by hand.
The full Downoaod total for any single since 1994 can be obtained at the flick of a switch - unfortunately this is onlt available to those with connections to the Music Industry.
It's not impossible BL sold a reasonable number of copies between 1965 and 1974 and then afterwards without troubling the charts. I wonder was the record actually deleted after 1964 or available on ordewr and re-issued in 1974 as public demand was increasing?
The Supremes in the UK are defined by two records - to a lesser extent You Can't Hurry Love but mostly by BL. Ask any-one in the street and of anyone who does know of their records the vast majority of responses will be BL.
I would not be surprised this ran into five figures but I don't think it would be a significant proportion of the total sales.
There really is no exact hard evidence of exactly how many BL sold in 1964. Like Roger I am basing my estimate in relation to how other leading records in that year sold - many towards 500k.
It could be as low as 350k although I think higher but then this is based on the BMRB Motown list which you don't think is accurate. They say BL is #8 while The FourTops Reach Out is #15.
The Virgin Book Of Hit Singles confirmed that RO had sold c470k in Aptil 2010 which means BL is more than this. Do you accept or take it that Virgin is giving misinformation? Hmmmm
There would really be no other way for the OCC to have sales figures for a record from 1964 except from the record company- it's up to you whether you think they are supplying false information but it puts it towards the 500k mark.
A big hunk of BL's sales could relate to how many they sold when they were at #1. Shipments will obviously always run ahead of over-counter sales. I can see what you are saying if the shipment figure only passed the 250k mark on 5th December but that is the week end date when the record was certified. How long did it take Disc to give the award when it received the claim etc?
As the record accelerated towards #1 there may have been big shipments in mid November sold around the period the record was #1 and the Company then made a claim towards the end of the month.
The thing is we don't know. I'm taking something on trust from a reputable comapny and other facts which also may or may not be wrong tie in with this. You don't believe this and also think the Silver Disc claim was made the instant the record passed the 250k shipment mark.
There's no satisfactory answer!!
As for Ash/Crampton I personally don't really rate it. Some lists are wrong on the info. I have but then that comes from the OCC and panel sales over the years.
Indeed that is true Florence, but as I keep pointing out, if the charts had any value [[and the whole industry used and followed them, so you kinda have to accept they were of some use!) then they do reveal more 'in aggregate' than just the snapshot ranking as to the bestselling hits of a given week.
As for the airplay component, there is a lot of misunderstanding about that too it seems. I've no doubt things are very different today, but back in the 60s the impact of radio plays on the Hot 100 was largely at the lower end of the spectrum. So, for instance, it was worthwhile getting the DJs some free copies and encouraging them to play your latest release because it could lead to a chart entry [[not to mention the blindingly obvious that a label needed its product to be heard for anyone to buy it!).
Once the record had 'broken' in radio land sales took over [[equally obviously), or didn't, and the further up the chart a hit climbed the airplay factor was less important. It was, in fact, a given! That is the nature of Top 40 radio...they play the Top 40 hits!
By the time you're into the reaches of the Top 10 and higher the records are all being played nationwide and the sales aspect is what dictates which climbs the highest and makes numero uno, and then for how long. If it isn't selling it'll soon be taken of rotation to make way for the next sounds.
So airplay is only a chart factor of importance in the breaking of these hits. I would not consider the US charts [[any of them) reliable from a sales point-of-view much below the Top 20; but then I wouldn't give much value to the UK ones that low down either as the margins are so small and the positions can be very interchangeable.
Anyway, what makes you think that Cash Box and Record World were not airplay-oriented too?
Smark wrote:
"Also, even if it's based soley on sales from the reporting period, perhaps A Hard Day's Night sold, let's say 200k the first week at #1 and 175k the 2nd week at #1, but by the time Baby Love hit number one, it did not with less cumulative sales over its 4 week reign than A Hard Day's Night did in its 2 week run? Just speculation. In the end, both songs survived and are both iconic [[if overplayed) songs for each act."
And I agree with all those points. You might have found it hard to believe you were contributing on a sales and chart thread Smark, but you've hit the nail on the head concerning the sales of the No. 1 so feel free to keep posting!