More RIAA Certifications

[doctorwho]

This might be old news - so please forgive me. But even if it is, it's worth repeating.

I hadn't looked at the RIAA or Billboard website in a while. As some of you know, there is a new single certification. If a song has 100,000 paid (legal) digital downloads, it receives a Gold digital sales certification in the U.S. 200,000 paid downloads is Platinum. 400,000 paid downloads is 2x Platinum (or Multi-Platinum), 600,000 paid is 3x Platinum and so forth. I would imagine that if a song had one million legal downloads, it might be certified as Diamond - but I haven't seen this yet.

U2 are now enjoying the digital world. "Beautiful Day" is now certified as Gold (100,000 paid downloads). It was certified on May 19, 2005 (as I wrote, this might have already been posted some time last year). "Vertigo" has the 2x Platinum status (certified on June 27, 2005). A quick look at Billboard shows that songs with 2x Platinum digital status have all reached the Top 10 on Billboard's Hot 100. Therefore, this strongly suggests that had Billboard counted paid downloads when "Vertigo" was at its peak, it most likely would have easily broken the Top 20 and probably reached the Top 10.

I'm hoping, after a year or two off, U2's next big single breaks through like this, giving them the Top 10 hit they deserved, but were robbed of due to Billboard's odd rules (both "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" should have at least been Top 20 hits).

Anyway, congrats to U2 on the extra certifications!

 

[doctorwho]

bump!

 

[cjboog]

It's a shame those songs didn't get the chart position they deserved. It's also a shame that when they did include downloads on the chart, SYCMIOYO, ABOY, and COBL didn't chart or just barely hit the top 100.

 

[STING2]

This might be old news - so please forgive me. But even if it is, it's worth repeating.

I hadn't looked at the RIAA or Billboard website in a while. As some of you know, there is a new single certification. If a song has 100,000 paid (legal) digital downloads, it receives a Gold digital sales certification in the U.S. 200,000 paid downloads is Platinum. 400,000 paid downloads is 2x Platinum (or Multi-Platinum), 600,000 paid is 3x Platinum and so forth. I would imagine that if a song had one million legal downloads, it might be certified as Diamond - but I haven't seen this yet.

U2 are now enjoying the digital world. "Beautiful Day" is now certified as Gold (100,000 paid downloads). It was certified on May 19, 2005 (as I wrote, this might have already been posted some time last year). "Vertigo" has the 2x Platinum status (certified on June 27, 2005). A quick look at Billboard shows that songs with 2x Platinum digital status have all reached the Top 10 on Billboard's Hot 100. Therefore, this strongly suggests that had Billboard counted paid downloads when "Vertigo" was at its peak, it most likely would have easily broken the Top 20 and probably reached the Top 10.

I'm hoping, after a year or two off, U2's next big single breaks through like this, giving them the Top 10 hit they deserved, but were robbed of due to Billboard's odd rules (both "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" should have at least been Top 20 hits).

Anyway, congrats to U2 on the extra certifications!

I'd prefer to see better album sales as opposed to increased single downloads. Increased single downloads will likely come at the expense of album sales. So this one area where I would not like to see large numbers for U2. The top 10 chart that is important is the airplay chart, and they have not been in the top 10 since 1992 on that chart.

 

[doctorwho]

Re: Re: More RIAA Certifications

I'd prefer to see better album sales as opposed to increased single downloads. Increased single downloads will likely come at the expense of album sales. So this one area where I would not like to see large numbers for U2. The top 10 chart that is important is the airplay chart, and they have not been in the top 10 since 1992 on that chart.

Alas, I think we are of a dying breed. Less and less people are buying CD's with more and more people downloading songs. And with the tremendous success of the iPod, I can't blame them.

I just bought some CD's that were not U2 related - the first time I've done this in a while. While having a CD, with liner notes and pictures and sometimes even a DVD extra is nice, it's far less convenient. It's great hearing a song on the radio or TV show or even commercial, going online to find it and instantly downloading it. Since iTunes, it's now legal. And just this past week, the U.K. reported 1 million legal downloads! So this is a boom to stay and most likely, grow.

Certain artists, including U2, will always at least go Platinum in the U.S. But it seems it takes more than a bit hit song or two to go beyond 2x Platinum.

I'm thinking with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, we've seen the final boom for U2. I'd love to be wrong - and knowing U2 they will find a way to be relevant again. However, it seems this might be their last huge sales rush. I expect future albums to sell less, with the token lead single selling well due to downloads.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: More RIAA Certifications

Alas, I think we are of a dying breed. Less and less people are buying CD's with more and more people downloading songs. And with the tremendous success of the iPod, I can't blame them.

I just bought some CD's that were not U2 related - the first time I've done this in a while. While having a CD, with liner notes and pictures and sometimes even a DVD extra is nice, it's far less convenient. It's great hearing a song on the radio or TV show or even commercial, going online to find it and instantly downloading it. Since iTunes, it's now legal. And just this past week, the U.K. reported 1 million legal downloads! So this is a boom to stay and most likely, grow.

Certain artists, including U2, will always at least go Platinum in the U.S. But it seems it takes more than a bit hit song or two to go beyond 2x Platinum.

I'm thinking with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, we've seen the final boom for U2. I'd love to be wrong - and knowing U2 they will find a way to be relevant again. However, it seems this might be their last huge sales rush. I expect future albums to sell less, with the token lead single selling well due to downloads.

This is the nightmare senerio for music. Its going back to the days when you polished a few singles and made your money there. If you had an album, the three singles were on there along with "filler songs". The quality of albums will drop if this is the future, as well as the general quality of music. The future is not good for music if its "American Idol" and "Singles". U2 has always been an album band, a band strong enough to produce enough quality material so that no track on an album is considered "filler".

With the tour delayed, until the end of the year, its possible the next album won't be out until the end of 2009 with the tour to follow in 2010. Considering how far album sales have dropped since 2000, I wonder what sales will look like in 2010. By 2015, album sales, even when they are full downloads, might be only 50% of what they were in 2000, or even less.

 

[doctorwho]

I wouldn't despair. Music is an important part in people's lives. It's just mutating. Those who loved jukeboxes in the 50's might have been disheartened to see more and more of them "disappear" in the 60's. Those who loved the wonderful album art of the 70's might have been disheartened to see the small CD case of the 80's. And those who loved the liner notes and tangible aspects of CDs might not be disheartened to only have music in this "electronic" format that they might not understand or even be able to use.

But eventually people catch up and learn. 8-Tracks were meant to be a convenient way to transport music. They didn't scratch, didn't easily break and could be played in a car. Regular cassette tapes were flimsy and for a while, the 8-track dominated. But it slowly got replaced by cassette tapes and then CD's. Now with cars having iPod jacks (like mine), the need for an in-car CD player or tape deck is gone.

There are those who like albums and those who like just singles. I'm in between. For a band I love, like U2, I want the album. For a new artist or an unknown artist, I'm happy to sample the songs. And truthfully, if I did buy the entire CD in the past, I only listened to the hit songs anyway.

So I disagree that this is a "nightmare" for music. People were illegally downloading singles and full albums before. Now they have a legal way to do it. If they were a single person before, they will be again. And I see nothing wrong with that - it's the single that originally brings recognition to an artist, not the entire album. If "The Joshua Tree" didn't have two #1 songs on it, would it have been as famous as it is? If there were no hit songs, would it have been anywhere near as popular as it was? People buy an album because they recognize a song or two that they love. They give the full album a chance. I think this will still happen. Artists will still release albums, but we may go back to an era where singles sell more - with token exceptions. So be it - music and sales evolve. I imagine there'll come a time when we won't even download - we'll just tell our home computers to play something and it does automatically!

 

[STING2]

So I disagree that this is a "nightmare" for music. People were illegally downloading singles and full albums before. Now they have a legal way to do it. If they were a single person before, they will be again. And I see nothing wrong with that - it's the single that originally brings recognition to an artist, not the entire album. If "The Joshua Tree" didn't have two #1 songs on it, would it have been as famous as it is? If there were no hit songs, would it have been anywhere near as popular as it was? People buy an album because they recognize a song or two that they love. They give the full album a chance. I think this will still happen. Artists will still release albums, but we may go back to an era where singles sell more - with token exceptions. So be it - music and sales evolve. I imagine there'll come a time when we won't even download - we'll just tell our home computers to play something and it does automatically!

In 1987, the Single was essentially dead when it came to sales. There were only two singles released in 1987 that sold over a million copies each. Just four years earlier in 1983, there were 40 singles that sold over a million copies. The Joshua Tree sold well, not because people were buying the singles, but because people heard them on the radio and then went to the store to buy the ALBUM. Obviously, the bands largest tour to date did not hurt sales of the album either.

The current situation is destroying sales of albums. Yes, some artist are getting some money now because of legal downloads through I-tunes, but it has not stopped the decreasing sell of albums. The industry will respond to what the public wants, and if they want American Idol type singles, as opposed to what I would consider quality music and albums, then that is what were going to get.

Snow Patrol is a great band, but they are still struggling to really crack the industry in a major way. Currently, the bands first two albums are still only available on import here in the United States and their most recent album after two years has yet to earn a GOLD record. Their new album comes out in May and they are struggling to fill Clubs and theaters at low ticket prices. 10 or 15 years ago, I think they would already be multi-platinum.

Bono even brought out this point at the HALL OF FAME awards. He mentioned the fact that if U2 had started in 2000 with first the Boy album and then the October album, and sold what they did back in 1980-1982, they would have been dropped from the record label in 2002. How many great bands have been pushed out of the industry over the past 5 years or never even got their foot in the door because of the current environment? We'll never really know. The American Idol formula of good looking people, supported by a team of writers and producers, plus a stream of introduction to the buying public before their first album is even released, is the direction the industry is moving in to an alarming degree.

Verteran big name artist are of course somewhat insulated from this, although their sales will indeed be effected.

 

[doctorwho]

Even if singles' sales were "dead" by 1987 (not sure if that's completely true), my point wasn't about singles itself. It was about the individual songs.

As you know, CD singles cost a fair amount more than the 45 rpm singles people bought in the 70's and ealry 80's. This is probably a reason why singles sales were "dead" - the cost. Even if the single had several tracks on it, for $5, people felt it was best just to buy the album.

In other words, the event of the CD actually hurt singles sales. People weren't willing to spend $3 for a 2-track CD or $7 for a multi-track CD for basically one song (and a bunch of remixes). So they bought the album.

Albums sold well because people wanted the songs they heard on the radio, but didn't want to pay the $$ for a CD single.

Now, people can get the exact song they want. If they are a fan of the artist, they'll buy the album anyway. But if they only like a particular song or are just learning about the artist, now people can buy that select song for a mere $1 - just like we did back in the early 80's when we bought 45 rpm records!

This goes back to my point - music sales are evolving and will continue to evolve as technology changes.

Artists who only made one or two great tracks per album and the rest "filler" will still do this. The event of iTunes will not change this - but now people won't waste $18 on a CD containing only one or two songs they like. They can spend $2 and get the exact songs they want. But an artist who focuses on making a great album will still do just that. And poeple will know this. That artist will still have strong overal album sales.

Therefore, I still disagree with you.

 

[STING2]

Even if singles' sales were "dead" by 1987 (not sure if that's completely true), my point wasn't about singles itself. It was about the individual songs.

As you know, CD singles cost a fair amount more than the 45 rpm singles people bought in the 70's and ealry 80's. This is probably a reason why singles sales were "dead" - the cost. Even if the single had several tracks on it, for $5, people felt it was best just to buy the album.

In other words, the event of the CD actually hurt singles sales. People weren't willing to spend $3 for a 2-track CD or $7 for a multi-track CD for basically one song (and a bunch of remixes). So they bought the album.

Albums sold well because people wanted the songs they heard on the radio, but didn't want to pay the $$ for a CD single.

Now, people can get the exact song they want. If they are a fan of the artist, they'll buy the album anyway. But if they only like a particular song or are just learning about the artist, now people can buy that select song for a mere $1 - just like we did back in the early 80's when we bought 45 rpm records!

This goes back to my point - music sales are evolving and will continue to evolve as technology changes.

Artists who only made one or two great tracks per album and the rest "filler" will still do this. The event of iTunes will not change this - but now people won't waste $18 on a CD containing only one or two songs they like. They can spend $2 and get the exact songs they want. But an artist who focuses on making a great album will still do just that. And poeple will know this. That artist will still have strong overal album sales.

Therefore, I still disagree with you.

I have the RIAA list for all Gold and Platinum singles from 1958 through 1989. There is a huge drop in single sales starting in the mid to late 1980s. I'll have to look back at it, but in 1988, not a single single sold enough copies to qualify for a GOLD record (1 million in sales). In 1989, GOLD certification standard was cut in half to .5 million and platinum was dropped from 2 million to 1 million.

In 1983, you had 40 singles receive GOLD records and two receive Platinum records. By 1988, you have no singles receiving any awards at all. If thats not a huge drop, then I do not know what is.

The CD single does not explain this either. All the Joshua Tree singles were put out as records in 1987. They were not put on CD until later. People were still paying for the same 45 RPM's in 1987 that they did in 1980.

The facts in regards to the current state of the music industry speak for themselves. Album sales continue to decline. People are either going for singles now because their so cheap or their still getting the music they want for free through downloading and file sharing. Bono said there was a problem last year at the Hall Of Fame awards and I agree with him.

The potential CD buying population is the largest it has ever been in history and is growing faster every year. Yet, album sales are heading in the other direction. If the single becomes king again, it will effect the quality of music. In my opinion, the quality of music has already been impacted by file sharing in free downloading. Its difficult to make money in this business if people simply get your product for free. Some people may choose to do something else because of that. As Bono said, your unlikely to remain signed by your lable if your first two albums only sell a combined 200,000 copies.

 

[04072511]

I have the RIAA list for all Gold and Platinum singles from 1958 through 1989. There is a huge drop in single sales starting in the mid to late 1980s. I'll have to look back at it, but in 1988, not a single single sold enough copies to qualify for a GOLD record (1 million in sales). In 1989, GOLD certification standard was cut in half to .5 million and platinum was dropped from 2 million to 1 million.

I didnt know that GOLD for a single used to be 1 Million. However wasn't Desire Certified Gold back in 1988. Unless it was early 1989 when it was. Was Desire's certification worth 1 Million or 0.5 Million?

 

[doctorwho]

I have the RIAA list for all Gold and Platinum singles from 1958 through 1989. There is a huge drop in single sales starting in the mid to late 1980s. I'll have to look back at it, but in 1988, not a single single sold enough copies to qualify for a GOLD record (1 million in sales). In 1989, GOLD certification standard was cut in half to .5 million and platinum was dropped from 2 million to 1 million.

I really need you to verify this. I was under the impression that Gold was always 500K sold and Platinum was always 1M sold.

Regardless, my overall point stands. Look at the timing. In the mid-80's, CD's replaced vinyl albums. People who grew up on vinyl - like me - were thrilled. I could now buy a CD and play one song over and over if I liked, without skips or wearing out the rack. I could rearrange the order of the album. With a multi-disk player, I could play songs from several CD's in any order I wanted. This is why there was a boom in album sales - people started replacing their vinyl (or tape) copies with CD's.

However, CD singles also were released. And these were expensive! People no longer wanted vinyl singles for the same reason they didn't want vinyl albums. But CD singles were more expensive - why pay $5 or more for a single when the entire album was $12? May as well get the album, even if one only really liked one song. After all, there may be a second or third song on there that one enjoys too. Hence, it was easy to see why single sales dropped and album sales soared - the event of the CD.

But CD's, like vinyl, are now seeing their time end. Truly digital releases are replacing CD's. The RIAA and Billboard now recognize digital sales. How many songs has iTunes sold? 500M??? I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA starts changing its policy for Gold and Platinum digital sales as more and more people buy music this way, foregoing illegal trading or CD/vinyl releases completely. In other words, while digital sales of a few hundred thousand are good enough for Platinum now, in the future, this may not even be good enough for Gold.

And the music world will shift to how it was in the 50's and early 60's, when singles dominated over albums.

But this isn't so bad. The Beatles made brilliant albums back then, even if they had tons of singles on them. Michael Jackson, in his 80's hey day, could produce a huge selling album full of top 40 hits (see "Thriller"). Same was true of Def Leppard. U2's "Joshua Tree" produced two #1 songs and "Achtung Baby" produced five (!) top 40 hits in the U.S. Yet most of us would consider those brilliant albums.

And that's my point. Artists who make a hit song or two and don't care about the rest, will still do this. They are all about the hit single and now iTunes will reflect that. But artists who produce great albums which also have hit songs will still have albums that sell well. U2 will always have their albums at least go Platinum (and most likely more), yet now the RIAA and Billboard will recognize that powerful first single correctly.

Overall album sales may indeed suffer, but singles will take up the slack. If an artist only cares about that hit song, nothing will change - except now he/she/they won't fool the public into spending $18 for a CD with only one good song on it. To me, this is a good thing.