Record Sales History: Your observation from

[AcousticDreams]

A friend of mine turned me on to this very informative 8 minute video just two days ago. It charts the top selling artists from 1969 to 2023. It changes very quickly, so you have to pay close attention.

Quite the eye opener for myself. So many facts that I would never have guessed.

I thought it would be fun to hear your interpretation, of what this video reveals about the Recording World. While this video is not about recording techniques, it may offer an insight to recording trends. As our recording technology increased, so did the types of music.

If you study this I think you will find all kinds of interesting observations. I will make just one to get the ball rolling; As large as the 80's New Wave-pop rock-Synth based- genre was, I did not see any of those artist listed. So I guess they were not as big as i supposed?

[dnf777]

Indeed! Not only the players and rankings, but the overall sales numbers. Would be interested to see how it looks on one scale. (They kept adjusting to fit the frame)

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

As large as the 80's New Wave-pop rock-Synth based- genre was, I did not see any of those artist listed. So I guess they were not as big as i supposed?

I think the reason a New Wave act doesn't make the lists isn't one of genre popularity but because no single New Wave band dominated for an extended period of time.

I just grabbed the first top ten New Wave bands list I found for illustrative purposes so I don't want to debate the order, but while all of these acts had plenty of success, none were ever the dominant musical act for any extended period, or at least not a long enough extended period to dominate sales long enough to push them higher in that video you posted.

Top 10 Best New Wave Bands
Blondie
Duran Duran
Talking Heads
The Police
Devo
Depeche Mode
The Cure
Culture Club
Tears for Fears
The B-52’s

Originally Posted by dnf777

Indeed! Not only the players and rankings, but the overall sales numbers. Would be interested to see how it looks on one scale. (They kept adjusting to fit the frame)

I'm not sure that same information could done as you suggest. The video wasn't showing accumulative numbers but rather snapshots of the numbers for a particular moment in time, ignoring what came before and after that moment. At least that's what I think it was showing.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I think the reason a New Wave act doesn't make the lists isn't one of genre popularity but because no single New Wave band dominated for an extended period of time.

I just grabbed the first top ten New Wave bands list I found for illustrative purposes so I don't want to debate the order, but while all of these acts had plenty of success, none were ever the dominant musical act for any extended period, or at least not a long enough extended period to dominate sales long enough to push them higher in that video you posted.

Top 10 Best New Wave Bands
Blondie
Duran Duran
Talking Heads
The Police
Devo
Depeche Mode
The Cure
Culture Club
Tears for Fears
The B-52’s



I'm not sure that same information could done as you suggest. The video wasn't showing accumulative numbers but rather snapshots of the numbers for a particular moment in time, ignoring what came before and after that moment. At least that's what I think it was showing.

Great list and great reasoning Jim1960. That is what I was thinking also.

But there are lots of other interesting notations one could make from this moving chart.

I think each of us will see a little something different. I noticed several things that I was not fully aware of.

Jim, Please tell us what you noticed?

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Jim, Please tell us what you noticed?

I don't see anything really surprising. I hadn't really thought about how you described the list before I hit play but I figured it out before too long. And once I figured out what the numbers meant the names on the list made sense.

I don't remember Cher and Pink Floyd being all that big in 1969 but I was only 9 years old so I may have just missed them for whatever reason. I wonder if anyone had a longer period of absence on the list than the BeeGees who start out in the #4 spot, then disappear only to reemerge in the disco era.

Another interesting thing was how quickly Led Zeppelin made the list and overtook the Beatles. Granted, however, it was 1.5 years after the Beatles last album was released. Still, for a group that only appeared on the list in the first quarter of 1970, it only took them two years to become the act that was finally outselling The Beatles and Elvis. Didn't last long but they pulled it off.

But then the movement becomes fairly predictable as acts with lasting influences climb to the top...
Elton John, The Eagles, Michael Jackson, Queen (dethroned MJ for like 30 seconds), Madonna, etc.

Fleetwood Mac nearly hits #1 having released (arguably) only one great album.

And we also see the acts that had really good runs even if they didn't get to the #1 spot...
The Carpenters, ABBA, The BeeGees (twice in totally different styles), Neil Diamond, Billy Joel, Prince, etc.

There was a fairly long stretch where the list went MJ, Madonna, Springsteen, Elton, Phil Collins, Dire Straits without much movement. At the time, only Springsteen and Dire Straits were on my turntable. Dire Straits soon tumbled and the album that pushed Springsteen up that list was of his I least liked, at least in retrospect.

There was a lot more hair/metal presence on the list than I'd have expected. But's that's likely because I didn't listen to that kind of music so the amount of popularity was lost on me.

The worst part of this was being reminded of how bad the 90s were. I don't even want to talk about what happened there. By the end of the 90s, so little of what was considered popular appealed to me that I tuned it all out. I saw the writing on the wall before that though, and had expanded my palette enough that losing pop still left me with plenty to listen to.

[DupleMeter]

What data is being used to determine these rankings? I'm unclear.

It's interesting & some of it seems logical (like the Fleetwood Mac bump during the Rumors era). Other parts make me wonder where the numbers are coming from. They can't be album or singles sales, because the whole stretch of 2000 onward would be very different.

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I'm not sure that same information could done as you suggest. The video wasn't showing accumulative numbers but rather snapshots of the numbers for a particular moment in time, ignoring what came before and after that moment. At least that's what I think it was showing.

Right. I mean just the scale of the x axis, so Elvis’ 2 million (over whatever interval they move at) doesnt look the same as the Eagle’s 4 million.

And I agree, no huge surprises. A little surprise was how quickly artists fall from top spots! (Much quicker than their rise)

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

What data is being used to determine these rankings? I'm unclear.

the moving chart is based on year by year.
World Wide total sales gives us an entirely different picture.

Each chart has its value and tells us its story. However, I am not sure that I trust any of these charts completely. For Example The Who has reported sold close to 50 million records worldwide...and I do not see them on any of the charts. The Moody Blues have reported sold 70 million records and again do not see them on the chart.

In the year by year moving chart we see which years artists sold big. We see how long an artist held their high ranking positions.

In this world wide total sales chart below tells us a different story. It tells us the complete appeal to the entire world over the groups lifetime. I have been pretty naive to all of this. For instance I have never listened to a Garth Brookes song. I knew he was popular, but I had not a clue as to the extent.

And I also see that Led Zep sold nearly twice as much as the Rolling Stones. Love both groups, but I did not realize the popularity difference. I would have thought them to be more equal.

Originally Posted by dnf777

Right. I mean just the scale of the x axis, so Elvis’ 2 million (over whatever interval they move at) doesnt look the same as the Eagle’s 4 million.

And I agree, no huge surprises. A little surprise was how quickly artists fall from top spots! (Much quicker than their rise)

For myself there were lots of surprises.

If I was a musician trying to make money, then I would value charts like this to see which direction Recording wise, I would take to maximize my potential.

Luckily I have no such ambitions for that kind of fame. The moving chart tells me that there is little chance of more than a very few listening to my outdated material. LOL...

[jim1960]

To put a better perspective on The Beatles' accomplishment, people should keep in mind that they only released studio albums for 8 years. 1963 through 1970. Granted there were various compilations that were put together later but 8 years is a far shorter creation span than anyone else near the top of the list.

[Gordon Currie]

Re: the Beatles

Also world population has more than doubled since then, and many countries have industrialized, so the potential sales audience has increased greatly.

I'd love to see a chart normalizing sales to percentage of humans on Earth. I suspect that may make the Beatles stand out even more.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

To put a better perspective on The Beatles' accomplishment, people should keep in mind that they only released studio albums for 8 years. 1963 through 1970. Granted there were various compilations that were put together later but 8 years is a far shorter creation span than anyone else near the top of the list.

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

Re: the Beatles

Also world population has more than doubled since then, and many countries have industrialized, so the potential sales audience has increased greatly.

I'd love to see a chart normalizing sales to percentage of humans on Earth. I suspect that may make the Beatles stand out even more.

Two outstanding points that really puts things into perspective.

Not only did the Beatles record in a short time period,
not only was the population of the planet nearly half,
But young adults did not have the money to buy as many records as they do now. In my high school days of the sixties, we did not have extra money to buy a turn table and records. Most of the young adults listened to the radio.

So not only the population was half...but I believe young adults did not buy as many records as a whole as compared with today generation.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Two outstanding points that really puts things into perspective.

Not only did the Beatles record in a short time period,
not only was the population of the planet nearly half,
But young adults did not have the money to buy as many records as they do now. In my high school days of the sixties, we did not have extra money to buy a turn table and records. Most of the young adults listened to the radio.

So not only the population was half...but I believe young adults did not buy as many records as a whole as compared with today generation.

The RIAA reported total sales for 2022 at an all time low, since they started keeping data.

This has been the driving force of the decline of revenues in the industry. Sales are nearly nothing & streaming platforms are not paying artists for their work.

[Bob Womack]

Here's an interesting aside: When I reached the end of my education in recording engineering and music composition in 1981, we were in the middle of a recording industry recession. A recording engineer or guitarist couldn't get arrested, much less a job. You can see all the numbers except the #1, The Eagles, sink precipitously in 1977 then begin to climb and then sink again in 1983.

The recording gear market began to soar in 1983 and stayed robust through 1987. Those were some of the biggest years for the Audio Engineering Society Convention in New York. They outgrew their space in the NY Hilton on Sixth Avenue and took over a good chunk of the newly-opened Jacob Javitts Convention Center.

Fascinating stuff, but I agree that the moving scale makes the data less than useful without stopping down. Of magazines I have often said, "Don't allow your art director to design the table of contents or you won't be able to find anything." I'll extend that to this sort of graphic presentation as well.

Bob

[KevWind]

Ha ! I had to slow it down to .75 % speed to make any sense of it .
But I also wonder about what constitutes a "Sale" I am betting they are including individual digital downloads in the latter years figures ... given album sales have tanked.

[The Watchman]

I like to remind myself that the whole industry of selling recorded music is only around 100 years, so the history is not that long. And Gordon's comment that you cant really compare sales over a period of time when the population has increased so much. And the demographics of the customer base have changed too.

But the bottom line is that record sales is not a good indicator of quality. And I note not a single "artist" on the most current list that appeals to me.