Rush album sales (really weird)

[Detonator]

Hi there,

 

long time no see...

 

I just went to check RIAA's site and Rush has still the same amount of albums sold as they had 20 years ago (back in 1994).

 

Apparently they haven't sold one single album since the Counterparts tour... or is there some other reason they want to keep outdated record sales information over there?

 

Not a big deal but I find it really weird as other bands' sales figures get updated frequently.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States

 

Cheers.

[savagegrace26]

The band/label has to pay/request for the RIAA to update the certifications I believe. It doesn't happen automatically.

 

And I think at least Roll the Bones was upgraded to Platinum in the past decade.

[tas7]

There's supposed to be an audit being done by Rush. Have heard they are owed 26+ platinum and gold records, and that they have sold around 60 million globally. The concert DVD/Blu-Rays have had recent certification, must be a different system.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

I think we all have a better chance of understanding the NBA salary cap, to include all the exceptions, than to understand how the RIAA ratings work. I have settled on accepting it as voodoo, nothing else.

[Detonator]

I mean really. How can it really take 20 years to update these figures?

 

They haven't been busy that's for sure.

[J2112YYZ]

I mean really. How can it really take 20 years to update these figures?

 

They haven't been busy that's for sure.

 

Like savgegrace said, the band or record label has to request the recent numbers and then if the album is eligible for a certifitcation, the label then has to pay money to get that taken care of. It's a messed up system but that's how it goes. The current numbers don't mean that Rush hasn't sold any albums in the last 20 years, it just means the band or record label have not made a request to get the updated information.

[Detonator]

I understand that.

 

Does it cost millions to update this information? I find it weird as almost all other (top) bands do it frequently. I've been watching those figures and almost all other bands' sales figures keep growing annually.

 

But when it comes to Rush, even Wikipedia quotes these totally wrong numbers from 20 years ago.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Detonator

[WorkingAllTheTime]

I understand that.

 

Does it cost millions to update this information? I find it weird as almost all other (top) bands do it frequently. I've been watching those figures and almost all other bands' sales figures keep growing annually.

 

But when it comes to Rush, even Wikipedia quotes these totally wrong numbers from 20 years ago.

 

Wikipedia having inaccurate data. Really?! How could *that* possibly be!?! :D

 

As for Rush not playing the game and paying to have the numbers updated.... maybe they just don't care. Honestly, if I were them, I wouldn't.

[Detonator]

Keeping wrong sales figures in the RIAA stats for two decades doesn't mean anything?

 

Personally I think it's quite pathetic. Like it or not, record sales mean a LOT in popular music... marketing... tour advertising and all that.

 

It's also one kind of achievement that deserves to be noted. Especially for a band like Rush that doesn't have even one hit song. :D

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Keeping wrong sales figures in the RIAA stats for two decades doesn't mean anything?

 

Personally I think it's quite pathetic. Like it or not, record sales mean a LOT in popular music... marketing... tour advertising and all that.

 

It's also one kind of achievement that deserves to be noted. Especially for a band like Rush that doesn't have even one hit song. :D

 

I really, truly think the guys don't care. Trust me, peruse their website and the merch available. They have quite the marketing machine going. They have all sorts of accountants. I bet they know exactly how many albums they sell... and I bet they don't give a damn about accolades from the industry.

 

40+ years later and they are still doing whatever they want, touring whenever they want, and still getting fans to buy their albums and see their shows. I have a sneaking suspicion that is what matters to them... that fans keep showing up.

 

Keep in mind this is a band that has never been of the cover of Rolling Stone... has never been the guest on SNL.... the band that only got in to the RRHOF because their fans forced the issue and changed the way votes were cast... the band that has been maligned by the industry since their earliest days in it.

 

Honestly, I kind of hope they have purposefully not been asking for RIAA updates. It makes total sense if you think about it....

[Detonator]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

[Geddy's Soul Patch]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

I have a hard time believing that anyone can care about this. Are you trying to troll the forum?

[savagegrace26]

The RIAA really needs to start counting illegal downloads as album "sales"...

[WorkingAllTheTime]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

 

If you have to pay the RIAA to "count" the sales, then the RIAA count is, in my opinion, "perverse". If we are going to argue numbers, then numbers should be the actual numbers, regardless of whether or not a band has agreed to play a silly industry game. Even then, the whole RIAA thing has never been a legitimate measure of fan support. A few examples:

 

* In my generation, we very often copied/dubbed/taped/recorded our friends' albums/cassettes/CDs. It wasn't intended as a subversion of the band or their earnings, but it was a financial reality of working class fans. I can't tell you how many times I told a friend, "You buy (this album). I will buy (that album)." with the intent of recording each others copy. There is no way the RIAA can account for that, but the reality is that practice was very legitimate, albeit immeasurable behavior of support and popularity.

 

* Rush is, quite frankly, one of the most bootlegged bands in history. There is a rabid fan base of folks who record/produce, trade, and sell live material from the band. The market here is undeniable... and completely outside the RIAA count.

 

* Rarely is influence actually measured by record sales. One could argue the single most influential artist in the history of rock music is Robert Johnson (cited as a huge influence by the likes of Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton, among others - not to mention covered by Rush on the Feedback album as we should not forget "Crossroads" is actually a Robert Johnson, not Cream, song). Robert Johnson's actual album sales wouldn't crack the bottom 5% in history, yet he stands as the iconic delta blues... and rock... god he was.

 

What's more, the RIAA numbers are musically and intellectually meaningless. Really, looking at this list....

 

http://en.wikipedia....g_music_artists

 

Do the majority of people on this board really give a s*** that Bon Jovi, Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, Taylor Swift, Cher, Olivia Newton John, Katy Perry, or New Kids on the Block have all officially outsold Rush? I doubt it.

 

By the way, the list actually denotes certified versus claimed sales for a reason... the reason being it is all relative BS.

Edited October 27, 2014 by WorkingAllTheTime

[Segue Myles]

I am a proud Rush fan. Rush are proud of their music. I love the fact they have been a huge success without a hit when hitmakers of decades past had careers dead within five years if lucky.

 

I want to see the sales figures. Why? Like a parent with a certificate of their child's achievement, any commendation and recognition from the world at large is too be encouraged. In decades from now, the music many remember may very sadly be the bands/musicians that set record numbers of sales (often for terrible music). It would be great for bands like Rush to preserve their legacy as much as they can by having their success proclaimed as loudly as a band in their position can.

 

It isn't selling out to recognise and publicly acknowledge the sales figures of your albums.

 

Maybe one day it will be updated!

[WorkingAllTheTime]

I am a proud Rush fan. Rush are proud of their music. I love the fact they have been a huge success without a hit when hitmakers of decades past had careers dead within five years if lucky.

 

I want to see the sales figures. Why? Like a parent with a certificate of their child's achievement, any commendation and recognition from the world at large is too be encouraged. In decades from now, the music many remember may very sadly be the bands/musicians that set record numbers of sales (often for terrible music). It would be great for bands like Rush to preserve their legacy as much as they can by having their success proclaimed as loudly as a band in their position can.

 

It isn't selling out to recognise and publicly acknowledge the sales figures of your albums.

 

Maybe one day it will be updated!

 

Fair enough..... but are sales figures really a legitimate measure of a band, particularly when the entity measuring the sales:

 

A ) Has differing standards between countries and continents?

B ) Can't accurately define or measure sales outside the initial marketplace (e.g., I buy a Rush album in a used music store)?

C ) Completely ignores the social realities of dubbing, bootlegging, and file sharing?

D ) Is prostrate to the industry it is supposedly measuring?

 

Sorry, but I can't accept the idea that anything the RIAA measures is actually meaningful.

[Detonator]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

I have a hard time believing that anyone can care about this. Are you trying to troll the forum?

 

Ah... is disagreeing with another poster and having a different opinion called "trolling" now?

 

Never been a big poster but I've been a member of this forum since 2007. Six full years longer than you, for example. I think I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion and I'm certainly not "trolling".

 

I personally think it's really pathetic and sad to be quoted with totally wrong sales figures everywhere. The other poster think it's not. Well... that doesn't make him right... just a disagreeable fellow. Capiche?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Detonator

[Geddy's Soul Patch]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

I have a hard time believing that anyone can care about this. Are you trying to troll the forum?

 

Ah... is disagreeing with another poster and having a different opinion called "trolling" now?

 

I've been a member of this forum since 2007. I think I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's a little ridiculous; in my eyes it's the equivalent of caring about public opinion polls

[Segue Myles]

I am a proud Rush fan. Rush are proud of their music. I love the fact they have been a huge success without a hit when hitmakers of decades past had careers dead within five years if lucky.

 

I want to see the sales figures. Why? Like a parent with a certificate of their child's achievement, any commendation and recognition from the world at large is too be encouraged. In decades from now, the music many remember may very sadly be the bands/musicians that set record numbers of sales (often for terrible music). It would be great for bands like Rush to preserve their legacy as much as they can by having their success proclaimed as loudly as a band in their position can.

 

It isn't selling out to recognise and publicly acknowledge the sales figures of your albums.

 

Maybe one day it will be updated!

 

Fair enough..... but are sales figures really a legitimate measure of a band, particularly when the entity measuring the sales:

 

A ) Has differing standards between countries and continents?

B ) Can't accurately define or measure sales outside the initial marketplace (e.g., I buy a Rush album in a used music store)?

C ) Completely ignores the social realities of dubbing, bootlegging, and file sharing?

D ) Is prostrate to the industry it is supposedly measuring?

 

Sorry, but I can't accept the idea that anything the RIAA measures is actually meaningful.

 

I agree totally, but in the context of the world at large, away from the fanbase, it would be great if people recognised Rush in a way similar to how Led Zeppelin, Queen or Pink Floyd are revered by fans and music critics alike. It won't change lives, but we live in a world seemingly built on statistics, and if it can contribute to cementing this bands legacy I think as much up to date info as possible is vital.

 

Around the release of CA their was a phenomenal buzz surrounding the band (a zeitgeist rush that pulled me further into the fanbase), and to see their names in the record books would be the icing on the cake. Yes, many of the top selling acts in history are dimwits (backstreet boys anyone?), but what a joy it is to look at such lists and also find, especially towards the higher end of the list, many phenomenal bands and musicians that shaped the music world for the better.

 

The higher Rush are on that list, the better. It proves not only that the band has an enormous fanbase, but longevity as well.

 

And besides, the list hasn't been updated for like two decades AND STILL THEY HAVE OUTSOLD GREEN DAY!!

[Detonator]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

I have a hard time believing that anyone can care about this. Are you trying to troll the forum?

 

Ah... is disagreeing with another poster and having a different opinion called "trolling" now?

 

I've been a member of this forum since 2007. I think I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's a little ridiculous; in my eyes it's the equivalent of caring about public opinion polls

 

Ooooh....that's a bit savage. I feel all sleighted.....does that mean the prom dance is a no-no then?

[Slack jaw gaze]

I am a proud Rush fan. Rush are proud of their music. I love the fact they have been a huge success without a hit when hitmakers of decades past had careers dead within five years if lucky.

 

I want to see the sales figures. Why? Like a parent with a certificate of their child's achievement, any commendation and recognition from the world at large is too be encouraged. In decades from now, the music many remember may very sadly be the bands/musicians that set record numbers of sales (often for terrible music). It would be great for bands like Rush to preserve their legacy as much as they can by having their success proclaimed as loudly as a band in their position can.

 

It isn't selling out to recognise and publicly acknowledge the sales figures of your albums.

 

Maybe one day it will be updated!

 

Fair enough..... but are sales figures really a legitimate measure of a band, particularly when the entity measuring the sales:

 

A ) Has differing standards between countries and continents?

B ) Can't accurately define or measure sales outside the initial marketplace (e.g., I buy a Rush album in a used music store)?

C ) Completely ignores the social realities of dubbing, bootlegging, and file sharing?

D ) Is prostrate to the industry it is supposedly measuring?

 

Sorry, but I can't accept the idea that anything the RIAA measures is actually meaningful.

It's a legitimate measure of their sales.

 

I don't see where anyone asked you to.

 

There was some blurb about a year ago where that Rich Chycki(sp?) guy tweeted something about updating the RIAA certifications, but I've heard nothing of it since.

[Segue Myles]

I disagree. You think it's "cool" in a perverse way. I think it's just stupid. Setting correct numbers in the RIAA stats is not "bending over" to the industry. It's claiming the records that BELONG to them.

 

I think it'd be EXTREMELY COOL to show that they have sold 60 million albums without being "corporate whores" to the industry. That's a HUGE achievement.

 

Now they can boast that they have sold "half as much", which is just ridiculous and untrue.

I have a hard time believing that anyone can care about this. Are you trying to troll the forum?

 

Ah... is disagreeing with another poster and having a different opinion called "trolling" now?

 

I've been a member of this forum since 2007. I think I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's a little ridiculous; in my eyes it's the equivalent of caring about public opinion polls

 

Ooooh....that's a bit savage. I feel all sleighted.....does that mean the prom dance is a no-no then?

 

Detonator, be proud of being identified as ridiculous.

[Detonator]

I expressed my opinion that having wrong sales figures in the RIAA site for two full decades is totally weird and unprofessional from a band of Rush's caliber. And it's a cold, hard FACT that this wrong figure is getting quoted absolutely everywhere... concert promotions, television, Wikipedia, etc. How is expressing that opinion offensive and "ridiculous"?

 

How can someone take offense from that and call it "trolling"? Are you friggin' serious? :D

Edited October 27, 2014 by Detonator

[Segue Myles]

I expressed my opinion that having wrong sales figures in the RIAA site for two full decades is totally weird and unprofessional from a band of Rush's caliber. And it's a cold, hard FACT that this wrong figure is getting quoted absolutely everywhere... concert promotions, television, Wikipedia, etc. How is expressing that opinion offensive and "ridiculous"?

 

How can someone take offense from that and call it "trolling"? Are you friggin' serious? :D

 

Agreed

[savagegrace26]

Roll the Bones was certified platinum in 2001 according to this (really it's been that long? Wow.)

 

http://www.rushisaband.com/blog/2013/08/14/3748/Rush-back-catalog-RIAA-Gold-and-Platinum-certification-coming-soon

 

Rush back catalog RIAA Gold and Platinum certification coming soon?

 

 

It's been a long time since any of Rush's studio albums have been certified Gold and/or Platinum by the RIAA. Although several Rush videos and compilations have been certified over the past several years, the last time a Rush studio album was certified was back in 2001 when Roll the Bones was given Platinum certification. Rush's last 3 studio albums have yet to receive even Gold certification (sales of 500,000 units) here in the US. However, with all the reissues in recent years including the Sector box sets, the recent Atlantic-era reissues (the digital version has already been released) and the deluxe editions of 2112 and Moving Pictures, it's likely that sales of Rush's back catalog have greatly increased in the past few years. Record companies need to explicitly request certification and it looks like this may have happened with Rush's record company(s) according to a Facebook post from Rush sound engineer Richard Chycki earlier today:

Just put in the request ... 26 gold and platinum album sales awards in North America, for all the Rush DVD's and albums over the past 9 years. Unbelievable! I am so blessed. Thanks, guys ... looking forward to many, many more!

Chycki explicitly says North America so several of these certifications may be in Canada where certification is handled by a different entity. It's also not clear whether pre-orders of Rush's upcoming reissue of Vapor Trails or pre-orders of the physical copies of the Atlantic-era box sets will be included (both will release on October 1st), or whether Snakes & Arrows and/or Clockwork Angels has any chance of getting Gold certification. But with sales of all the recent reissues, it's likely that several albums in Rush's back catalog may get Platinum or multi-Platinum certification. The RIAA's database of Gold and Platinum certifications is freely available online and you can check out all of Rush's certifications here (just do a search for "Rush"). More information as I learn it.