Off Topic Messages

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:11 pm

minkahed wrote:
seriously, I think those stats are way outdated Jeff!!!

I have calculated Motley's units sales from other CRUE fan sites and their album totals are up in the 45 Million range...


Read it and weep guys! LOL

Yes... I am sure the list is outdated somewhat... BUT I would take the stats at RIAA over a Motley Crue fan site... come on! lol

No, I don't think Garth Brooks has sold more than Elvis... they don't even have him listed as selling more. Where did you get that info on a Garth Brooks fan site? :P

The charts used to be based on units shipped... as opposed to units sold in the soundscan age... so KISS could even be less than they list... 75 million units sold by KISS, highly unlikely. Remember when the solo albums shipped platinum... certified platinum because that was what was shipped not actually sold... because these albums were on the cut out racks within 2 years.

It's Ok, though genesim, don't blow a gasket again, we all know who as sold the most lunch boxes and caskets! :P

ALL bow to METALLICA!!!!!! 57 million albums sold! :P :P :lol: :lol:

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:09 pm

Hey Jeff can you please explain to me how KISS Alive! only being certifed GOLD by the RIAA??

I was talking about when Garth Brooks was ahead of Elvis Presley in certifications. If at anytime he was ahead then you know the system is flawed...or are you fool enough to believe that Elvis sold the most singles and albums of his career in the span of the last few years??? He jumped from 30 million in sales to over 100!!!

You are pointing out stats on the Solo albums as proof positive that Kiss hasn't sold 75 million?

Dude that was an estimate, actually if stats were really accurate Alive and Destroyer would be certified much higher alone...let alone the fact that there are many albums sitting at the gold or nothing status.

Remember the Elvis argument I set a while back about releasing more albums and not getting credit for partial sales. Well would you agree that Metallica with 6 or so albums has a lot less to lose then say KISS with a catalog of about 30 albums. That is a possible 499,999 thousand sales (because as you know...anthing less then gold is not counted)that are not being counted times 30+!!!!

Motley Crue as well when it comes to lax certifications in the past. Shout at the Devil has sold far more then a 4 million.

Keep believing that RIAA fantasy world. I have no doubt that Metallica has been accounted for and has indeed sold 50+ million..but at the same time I also believe it is an unfair acccessment if you are going to compare apples with apples. The Sound scan era has changed the way albums are counted and are at least a little more accurate(barring scanning errors and bloated reportings)

By your rationale Bing Crosby has 10 million in certified sales..so should he bow down to Metallica as well? He ruled the first half of the century..and still does when it comes to White Christmas during the holiday season...yet it is Metallica who most people don't even know who the f*ck they are that all should bow down to?

What you are failing to grasp is the fact that most of the heightened sales are based off of CURRENT cirtifications. If a band does not call for an audit then there is no updated information.

Gene Simmons has said many times that he never cared for the reportings and it in his best interest not to go after the "awards".

Trust a fan site...well yes you should. Because unlike the RIAA they have a motive to get the information correct!

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:30 pm

I would like to see the stats you have seen for KISS and Motley album(individual album) sales from the fan sites. Actually, I do find it quite odd that Kiss Alvie is only certified gold... when the Kiss certifications were apparently updated in 1996, and how they are always talking about how this album saved their carrer.

Keeping in mind that the RIAA is for American sales only. So don't give me some worldwide guesstament of Motley and Kiss sales, USA only.

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:49 pm

If I had the stats, I would post them. I can only report on rumors and logic.

Still use your head. If ONLY cutting the sales below 499,999 then you would have to admit that there is a significant loss. Almost 18 Million actually. as compared to only a possible loss of 5th of that.

KISS without a doubt trounces Metallica...worldwide..even more so.

Metallica perhaps has passed up Motley, but that doesn't mean the figures are right that RIAA has reported on them either. I believe the total is much closer to 45 million..at the least.

I can only state my opinion, and that is not from a sales auditor. The sames goes for impact. But I can tell you for sure, I have never trusted the RIAA comparing "in house" sales that are rarely counted as opposed to a complete overhaul of the system with soundscan seems entirely unfair.

Alive itself isn't even considered a double album anymore because of the limitations of a record 30 years ago.

Metallica owes a debt of grattitude to both acts, and as far as I am concerned..sales or not, everything after and including the Black album will be forgotten. They don't have memorable songs, and in the grand scheme of things that means alot. But lets face it, this is true with all history. The innovators don't always get the credit they deserve. I would never base it entirely on some Award totals.

AC/DC and Aerosmith are ahead of KISS(at least according to RIAA) as well, doesn't mean I would hold them higher in the grand scheme of things.

Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:39 am

As far as I know, Rolling Stones will be in Brazil on January 2006... BUT I still want to see Elvis The Concert with the TCB Band! Nothing against them, but I for EIC now!

Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:37 am

midnightx wrote:Their last tour was great. If one can get past the carnival atmosphere that can surround the shows, looking closely at the performances shows a band that is playing as well as they ever did.

**Sidenote: Now if only Keith would stick to his word and release some material from the archives!


Probably better than many shows from the 70s. I've seen some very lacklustre, amateurish performances, probably due to the amount of crap pumping around their systems. Every time they tour, I keep meaning to check them out and never do. My father was there at the original gigs at the Crawdaddy club in Richmond, before anyone had really heard of them, so it would bring it full circle in a way :)

Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:20 am

I wanna see Motley and Rolling Stones...BAD!!!

Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:51 pm

I could handle it, I've just been razzing you about Motley! lol You really took the bait! :wink: I got my ticket in the mail today for the Rolling Stones... I wish they would tell who was opening up this show for them.

HEY HEY, you got me Rockin NOW! If you start me up, I'll never stop! :D

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:55 pm

TJ wrote:
midnightx wrote:Their last tour was great. If one can get past the carnival atmosphere that can surround the shows, looking closely at the performances shows a band that is playing as well as they ever did.

**Sidenote: Now if only Keith would stick to his word and release some material from the archives!


Probably better than many shows from the 70s. I've seen some very lacklustre, amateurish performances, probably due to the amount of crap pumping around their systems. Every time they tour, I keep meaning to check them out and never do. My father was there at the original gigs at the Crawdaddy club in Richmond, before anyone had really heard of them, so it would bring it full circle in a way :)


That had to be incredible seeing the original band in a pub in the 60s! I never got to see the Stones in the 70s. I did just get a copy of that movie "Ladies And Gentelmen, The Rolling Stones" from their 72 tour, I really like it alot, that version of "B*tch" on it is smashing!

JEFF d
Elvis fan

Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:14 pm

Well I am jealous anyway. Have fun at the show. :cry: