Reminder that a lot of these mega-selling boomer albums from the 70's have inflated numbers because people bought the same album 5+ times whenever a new format came out. They'd buy the record, the the tape for driving, then the CD, and they'd replace one when it got lost, etc. Their sales numbers didn't reflect the quality of the music.
>>128862755excellent point brother
>>128862755The real bullshit to me is that the RIAA awards double albums with double certifications, so if your double album sell one million copies you get 2x platinum. That's just blatant corruption.
>>128862755Surely the "quality" is "reflected" most clearly if people buy something multiple times because they like it.
>>128862755How many fleetwood macs are there? Do they keep changing the members , or are many bands out there with the same name? Ive heard people say this giys's fleetwood mac , that guys's fleetwood mac etc
>album factually sold 5 copies>somehow this is inflated because you should count how many different people bought it or somethingare you retarded
>>128863016early-late 60s: green eralate 60s-mid 70s: welch eramid 70-2022: buckingham and nicks erafleetwood mac changed members every other year before buckingham and nicks, and buckingham left in the mid 80s and needed two guitarists to replace him
>>128863016at least 3 + the fake one
>>128862755I bought an original vinyl of this album. It sounds alright, but dull as fuck. So how did this get the whole "audiophile" album reputation when the original one sounds bad?
>>128863016I count 7, if we're only going by the lead guitarists/songwriters and not just every sideman who came and went along the way.
>>128863100Actually make that 8. I forgot Dave Walker.
>>128863090You have a volume knob don't you? Turn it up, cretin.
>>128862939the albums cost twice as much so that was the justification. You were essentially buying 2 albums.
>>128863090dull is good, it means you didnt fuck anything up
