Talk:Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Library of Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

shouldn't the title be "Eagles: Their Greatest Hits"? Mapetite526 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Things

1) I agree it should be Eagles: Their Greatest Hits like the above user said. 2) The High Voltage link should link to either High Voltage (Austrailian Version) or High Voltage (English [or American, I forget which] Version) instead of high voltage like it does now.

Agree. The band's name is Eagles and not The Eagles as they are almost always called. Doesn't seem to bother them much, though. In fact, I could swear of I've seen interviews where Frey and Henley have themselves referred to the group "The Eagles.":::PainMan (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might just mean that the band is called THE Eagles then huh? If the band is calling itself that.--124.40.63.122 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide this album is third behind AC/DC's "Back In Black"'s 42 Million in sales. Should be stated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.40.116 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Back in Black page it says IT is the second best selling album of all time. And now this page says THIS one is.....which one is it???--124.40.63.122 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did minor rewrite (improving diction, etc) of intro and summary chart. Added information (e.g. that the album's sold 29M copies to date) as well as RIAA cite. (Nice to know the RIAA's good for something other than suing 12 yr olds and dead people.)

Changed "Genre" in the chart to "Classic Rock" (added cite) as that is how they are generally pigeon-hold today and the radio stations their music is most frequently heard upon. Though we used to call those stations "AOR", they're now called "Classic Rock".

Has it been certified Triple Diamond yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.112.80 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added

This article contains a list of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles.

tags to several sections that should be written as paragraphs in order to conform to standard wikipedical (yeah, it's a word) format.

PainMan (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits should give the backbone to a higher ranked article class, here. More educated editors, please expound on this. And please note this is one of the best-selling albums in history, and deserves the (citable) prose to improve the page. Mind you, I'm quite biased knowing that I've significantly helped here, but let's get it to "A" class, people! Let's just do it... Doc9871 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the RIAA now lists Thriller above this album suggests that Thriller is the #1 selling album in the US. While both have reached 29 times platinum, it is unlikely that the two albums have sold exactly the same amount of units causing a tie. However, this is what the article currently states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettpam (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the methodology for determining the number of sales of an album makes it difficult to determine exact numbers for these things. The methodology has changed over the years, while

SoundScan uses direct data from sales, it has only been in use since 1991; sales records before 1991 were "sketchy" at best, so it is actually impossible to count, reliably, down to the exact number of albums each has sold. They are sold "about" the same number of albums, both hitting 29x platinum, which is as precise as we can get. Yes, if we could actually count every sale of each album, we could declare one to be the absolute winner, but it is quite impossible to be that accurate, especially for older albums. --Jayron32 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a cite (Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone or Billboard, I think) from years ago, listing weekly sales of albums that have steady sales outside of the Billboard 200, and Their Greatest Hits was Number One, outselling Thriller by 10's of 1,000's. Unless Michael Jackson's death altered that equation, it is easy to conclude that the two would have ended up in a tie at some point. MMetro (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me and a partner of mine feel this article is lacking the amount of comprehensive information needed to fulfill its potential. One possible thing we will be adding in is the history behind how the album came together. We hope this will help the article grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototype1364 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a private message about my editing, so okay, the problem the new "edit'of this wikipedia page don't have half the quotes of the Reuters articles; and have cancelled half of the information, if someones have a problem with the articles, feel free to discuss that in the talk section; the reuters articles take soundscan like a comparaison, in fact there are a big difference between the information of RIAA (shipment) and Soundscan, far more that usual; see the top 100 from Soundcan (since 1991): keep in mind that during this period, according RIAA, their Greatest Hits 17 millions albums have been sold in shipment in USA:

http://trinitrent.com/2013/07/best-selling-albums-of-the-soundscan-era/

You can see, The Greatest Hits is not in this list; so less than 6 millions albums solds; so I edit back again my part of the wikipedia page, to reflet the works and the articles of the source.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jackson-billboard-idUSTRE56I2B820090719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croscos77 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the same wording as the source, or your contribution will be removed as a copyright violation. Instead, you must summarize the source with your own wording. Also, don't create a controversy where the source has none. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry I was not aware of the copyright aspect of the wikipedia articles...about the word controverse, maybe "controverse" was a little too hard, but in this article, the critic and the accusation is very present (see how they present the RIAA/sales difference and the irony behind the lack of explanation), specially in the context of this album, supposed to be the best selling album of the 20th century in the USA; there are always some difference between sales and shipment (not very important), but nothing close to this level (numbers near divided by 10)...to present the numbers just like that in your editing; with the lack of explanation; could be disturbing imho for someones not used to read about these numbers (difference between sales/shipment); Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible for new readers; but that just my point of view, I will don't change this edit; the numbers is here, it's the most important.

Thank you Sir, for your patience, and sorry for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croscos77 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the completely unsupported term "controversy" was rightly removed from the article, what remains are several disparate facts with no context or meaning. This supposed controversy is based on ignorance of what RIAA certifications represent or don't represent. The first misconception is that intermittent certifications represent a running tally of an album's sales—that is not the case, especially for pre-platinum and pre-multi-platinum releases where documentation of decades-old sales are difficult or even impossible to locate. In this case, the 12x platinum certification in 1990 may not have represented all sales to date. And the additional 10 million units certified in 1995 doesn't necessarily represent sales since 1990, they could have come from any point in the album's history. As for the first question posed in the Reuters article—why no multi-platinum award until 1990? That's easy. The multi-platinum award wasn't instituted until 1984, by which time the Eagles were a defunct group who were pursuing successful solo careers. There would have been no incentive for anyone to apply for awards at that point. So why 1990? By then the CD boom was under way and record companies were getting a big boost from catalog sales and there was renewed marketing interest in "evergreen" artists such as the Beatles, the Eagles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, all of whom got their first multi-platinum awards for their classic albums in 1990-91. Why 1995? The Eagles had reunited and were on their first tour since 1979 and it was time to tout their greatest hits. These awards are, after all, primarily marketing tools. The unusual certification history of Their Greatest Hits can be witnessed with other albums or artists. For instance, assuming a "running tally" would indicate that Led Zeppelin IV sold one million copies over a six month period then sold one million more over the next six years. The Elvis Presley catalog is another example of certifications coming at various points in time decades after the sales occurred. Elvis' total album certifications went from 102 million in 2002 to 117.5 million in 2004. Did he sell 15.5 million albums in 2002-04? Of course not. Did he sell 49 million albums from 1999 to 2011 as the certification level indicates? No, most of these sales occurred long ago, they are only recently being documented and the awards applied for. Other classic albums would also probably be very close to Thriller and Their Greatest Hits except that it appears that the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd have essentially dropped out of the platinum race, leaving their most popular albums with certifications that are 10, 15, even 18 years old now.

Also, any suggestion that the Eagles, the RIAA, or Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman, LLP have engaged in fraud would be a fairly serious allegation and poses significant BLP issues and should not be the subject of idle speculation on Wikipedia. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding about this supposed controversy. Piriczki (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, that don't explain the extreme difference between Soundscan and RIAA for the period of 91-99 (or after) for this album, you can't compare the total multiples albums of Elvis with this situations; we talk about 10 times differences for just one album (and unlike what you say it's not the same case for the others artists), if RIAA have the proof of their numbers, they should have given a long time ago, and that don't necessary mean there are a "fraud", if Warner music make 29 millions of Albums in shipment, well that their problems, the RIAA can't deny that, because unlike Soundscan, they don't follow the real sales; it's not their job; I can give another examples, in 1984 the albums Thriller have sold 20 millions albums (from various sources) in less of 2 years; but after that, according the RIAA, just 1 million between 84 to 90; and a very weak 7 millions albums during the 18 years after that....well imho it's clear CBS/Sony don't want give the real sales to the RIAA, my point is that the RIAA is very dependant to these big music record company, and can't be a good mesure for the sales of an album with a big controversial difference like in the case for this Eagles album.Croscos77 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State the actual wholesale sales of Thriller and Their Greatest Hits, citing

reliable sources, otherwise take your opinions elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a forum. Piriczki (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]