Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Is it possible to structure the talk?

Would it be possible to clean up this talk section by giving it some structure, sorting the artists alphabetically etc? --83.109.142.134 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

General discussion

Why was Jethro Tull removed from the list?

According to the band's 1999 bio, they have sold approx. 60 million records. They used to be in this list but have disappeared. 68.170.73.213 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Major POV in the intro

The intro should definately be changed. You can't say things like "the biggest selling musician ever will probably never be know", because that is POV unless it is sourced. I have re-worded the intro, and sourced were applicable. Hope you find it easier to read, and more accurate. Street walker 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sales & Sources

I see now that download sales are being included. If so, then sales of various artists compilations should also, after all if an act appears on a CD with a song and it sells then it's another one of their records being sold. Budget albums too. We can't just embrace what the Michael Jackson fans want too. I wonder how many Kenny Rogers, Tom Jones, James Brown, Jim Reeves and Cliff Richard albums have sold over market stools over the decades that the RIAA, BPI and such like have never accounted for. It's worth doing the research, looks like these acts sales could soon look as good as anyone's. Kenny Rogers, for example currently has over 350 albums in print (all of which are selling) and he has always had a large number of albums in print (but these sales are not accounted for by the RIAA) so that's far over 1000 albums of his that have NOT been accounted for in his "official" sales.... and then of course the thousands of compilations albums he's been on over the last 30 years "classic country", "hits of the 70s", "the country legends".... etc..etc. Benny

Sales...

... rise before christmas: proud to announce the appearance of Bing Crosby on the list. Why did the American wikicommunity ignore the world's most famous christmas singer? Forgotten? That's not what "the king of the crooners" deserve.

Sources: The RIAA-list shows only the US-aspect of artist's success. You can find great sources like "Elvis 30 No. 1 Hits" which on the one hand explain the artists huge success through many number one hits, on the other show his greater success in the US compared to anotherland, in this example Germany. There Bob Marley may have had greater success than in the US. Marley must have reached the 40.million-border which usually is the entrylevel for the list. And since there are not only the US and GErmany, he must even have higher sales figures.

Write understandably, please.

For some of the top entries, the numbers include slashes (a la 39/42). What does this mean? I can't find any clarification?

Minor Edits and Revisions

I am not removing anyone from the list I am just moving artists around (not changing their numbers) So that their position on the list is based on their current cited number, I am also crosschecking these numbers as I go along to make sure they have not been tampered with. Also there were two for Paul Anka, and despite being a Canadian I removed the higher of the two, because its source was questionable, as the source for the lower one could be considered somewhat more reliable, if someone can find a credible source, not the one discussed in the very first section, feel free to move him back up the list. --Meanie 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In further searching, I can not find any Johnny Mathias on the RIAA list, and the source another wikipedia article says he has sold 130 million US albums, extract this from his current totatl (the most he could have sold in the US and not been on that list is 19 million) and he falls way way way down several hundred places. Ill do a bit more poking before I do anything conclusive but I think someone likes the guy and bumped him up just a few notches.--Meanie 05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay I think we have straitened Mathias away somewhat, he drops back to 180 million in sales, based on his website. That is his claimed definate number. But I dont recall seeing anything from RIAA. I would like to see him dropped back to somewhere around 40 million based on the sole fact that his sales claims are just too high to be true without showing on the RIAA list, especially since it is claimed that most of his sales are in the US. Popular perhaps, 180 million? I think we need to get real here.--Meanie 05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I just brought Bryan Adams back in line with his source, a message board, I really think we need to find a better source. But in its absense he was brough back down to 60 million to fall into line with this source. Untill such time as a better source can be found he should be kept right there. Another note is this article seems to be a target of vandals, needless to say I think that I will pretty much have much of the vandalism removed. Then we can get back to discussing how to deal with some of the more questionable numbers. Perhaps we should make a list of artists who we need a better source for.--Meanie 05:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

RIAA Standard

Here is what I propose we do, we should use the RIAA as a standard for American artists, if their numbers from sources of sales are not stacking up, then we should edit them to bring them into line with the RIAA. I see many artists on here who their sources that are listed cite them has having sold 100 million in the United States. However the RIAA has never heard of them. --Meanie 05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Danger area. The RIAA's figures are NO MORE RELIABLE than anyone else's. In 1999 they gave Garth Brooks an AWARD for "best selling solo act ever", only to turn around a year later and certify Elvis Presley as such. Also look at their upgrades for Led Zeppelin albums. In the space of a few years they go up for a few million sales, without any significant success in Billboard. 195.93.21.40 05:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The RIAA figures are based on units shipped to stores, not units sold. This would explain the Led Zeppelin situation, if stores across the country decided to stock up on Zeppelin releases. Especially considering that some gas stations and grocery stores will often carry a limited selection of CDs, most of which sit on the shelves for a while. Read more about RIAA certification process at [1].

Restoration of 200-249

This section I have not fixed, but it was evidently destoryed by Vandals, as it is completely gone. We need to replace this section. --Meanie 06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Update! I have restored between 200-250 there is a posibility of errors in there, but Im not sure why it keeps getting deleted.--Meanie 01:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This list is a mess

4 Aug 2005 24.250.0.79:
Furthermore, this list is a mess. I had to add the Beatles but I don't know all the necessary information. The number one spot is some Japanese singer that I am pretty sure doesn't belong there. The numbering is all wrong because bands have been deleted and added. The statistics at the bottom do not match the list. There are bands that clearly belong on the list but are not there, etc. Someone please fix this!

Unfixable. To do this right, you'd have to have reliable worldwide data (doesn't exist), a better wiki table formatting/numbering mechanism (doesn't exist), a real database query mechanism for the stats (doesn't exist), and no vandals (too many exist). Vorash spent tons of time and effort on this list, but eventually he was driven insane and left Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 00:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much guys for votes for deletion of this list. Now i understand that i was 100% right when i left a Wikipedia. My biggest contibution now will be destroyed. Thank you again ! Vorash 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your biggest contribution is a pile of garbage. Admit it. It's based almost entirely on speculation. The sources you've cited are almost universally absurd. Wikipedia should have a higher standard than guesstimations.

Notes

Could someone take a look at the "Notes" section? I did what I could for the first two paragraphs, but had to stop there. There must be a way to reword the sentence, "sales projected from US album sales data based on "popularity" in the world and based on US/World sales ratio of similar artists that already have both US and World sales data." to something less headache-inducing. 24.4.199.243 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with this list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can you say that mariah carey has sold more then elton john and ACdc and the eagles. Mariah Carey SUCKS! I know this because the eagles and acdc and elton johns careers have benn going for about 3 times longer then Mariah Carey!!!!!!!!

Worst List Ever!!!

About half of it is total nonsense. Nuff said. It's almost laughable.

second that thought --Rightsaidfred 01:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

this is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

You can say that again I meen i reckon its all bull except for the beatles and elvis. I dont meen to be a no it all but i know its pretty dam wrong. How can you say the eagles have sold less then AcDc... coff..coff..

I agree 100%. How could've John Travolta sold 300 million albums at a point. The guy is a celebrity and needs people to wipe his ass for him and some douchebag goes on wikipedia and says he sold that many records. GIVE ME A BREAK. And people say we vandalize. We are making the list more realistic and actually putting in the correct information. Whenever i sometimes read the list i laugh till i piss because it can get really retarted.

possible sneaky vandalism

This edit strikes me as possible sneaky vandalism, as it is by an editor who has done nothing but change numbers without edit summaries or cited sources; in one case it was immediately obvious that the change was incorrect, but I am not sure about this one. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 Yes, there has been lot of very sneaky vandalism on this site. In particular,

6 or 7 Queen references have been provided at various points in time, all of which have been repeatedly vandalised and erased. Interestingly the offending individual moves Queen about 100 spots down on the chart without providing a single reference! I guess that he does not like Queen. Nonetheless, I feel that he should at least provide some kind of alternative reference if he wants to do this in a valid way.

 Another interesting phenomenon inolves the fact that, in several cases, I have added 

sources which seem to imply that the estimate for a given artist may be way too high.

However, I never actually change the relative ranking of any artist.

In some cases, I even cite the RIAA figures, which are pretty official, at least for the US.

The incredible thing is that people will actually remove these references. It is as though they opposed to people seeing the real figures.

DELETION?

WHY in the world hasn't this article been deleted? It had wayyyy more pro-deletion votes than the rest! This list is so unaccurate it should be deleted. I am utterly disappointed with Wikipedia. It's a complete anarchy. Articles will should be deleted are not because people are scr*wing the encyclopedia system. Amen.

I gotta agree that this entry is so inaccurate and prone to rogue editing that it's pretty much useless. --Jacj 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Admins usually require more than a simple majority for deletion. Sometimes it's two thirds, and sometimes they take into consideration the quality of the arguments being made. -- Beland 21:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete. This is the first time I've seen the list and the first time I've discovered Nana Mouskouri, Cliff Richard, and re-discovered C.W. McCall. It had an Indian Artist "Jazzy B" when I first found it. I tried to edit and add India as the country and by the time the edit page came up, someone removed it. Anyway, I used my Yahoo Music subscription to listen to these 4 artists and loved each one. I think this is a great list and should encourage listing total sales from international artists, not just USA, Canada, and the UK. I realize that it's far from perfect, but the disclaimers at the top specify that. It's getting about 20 edits a day, which I think is good. It might take a year or more, but eventually it will settle down once rules are defined and posted. Please let this Wiki play it's course. I believe the result will be very valuable in exposing great music to young listeners like me.

Tag

I'm adding a disputed tag. If this article survives AfD pretty much every number on here will be disputed at some point or another as there is no definitive repository of international record sales. Suggest leaving this tag up since at any given point this information is being changed/disputed. Probably a better indication of this than the ridiculous salt shaker image.--Isotope23 19:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Readded Tag that was removed in edits. I also removed the intro commentary about "enjoying the music" and "Amen!"... non-encyclopedic commentary.--Isotope23 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole list seems to have a structural error

I've just renumbered everything on the start of the list (10, 20, 30; was 11, 21, 31 ...) to have the ranks numbered the same way as with ranks 100ff. And I've found a huge bug. Please look at the David Bowie line (#40) and then count by hand down to 50. You will arrive at somewhere over 50 but the next section (50~99) will start with 50. OUCH! -andy 80.129.80.89 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Lock this page?

Should this page be locked to prevent editing and vandalism? I suggest the page be locked, and if someone thinks something on the page should be edited, the make a request and provide reliable sources to back it up. Street walker 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• "to prevent editing"? Of course not. The purpose of a Wiki is to allow anyone to edit it. If this page were locked to prevent editing, then by its very nature it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• The purpose of Wiki may be to allow anyone to edit, but some articles (George W Bush, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and this one) are constantly being vanalised. Wiki has a way of dealing with problems like this. They can lock a page, and if anyone wants to edit they have to ask an admin. I think this article is vandalised too much and the current list is very good and accurate. So if anyone wants to edit an artist's record sales, they shoudl ask an admin and provide reliable sources. Street walker 06:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles are not permanetly locked, and no, there is not one single article where somebody has to get the permission of an admin to edit it. If such is the case, please point it out, and I will unlock it immediately. This is entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• what Streetwalker means is lock the page, but make sure Michael Jackson is at the top first. (lol)
• What's funny is you think you're funny! (lol) Street walker 11:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Michael Jackson is the biggest selling artist of all-time according to the WMA's, AMA's and MTV VMA's.

The page should be deleted

If this list is correct Milli Vanilli have sold 3 times as many records as The Beach Boys! To keep a certain level of seriousness and credibility at Wikipedia the list should be deleted. It is every researchers nightmare, and at best it only offends music fans slightly. If this list is to work, all figures should come from only a few reliable sources like the RIAA. I'm looking forward to that, cause I could really use this list in my work.

The RIAA's figures have been questioned time and time again. Not suprising. How did they name Garth Brooks the best selling singer ever in 1999, have an award ceremony and then all of a sudden state Elvis Presley was? I'm not saying Brooks has outsold Presley, but it goes to show that the RIAA can't be considered gospel, if they were so accurate in their numbers, they wouldn't have made this error in the first place. I also find it hard to believe that Led Zeppelin have some of the biggest selling records since 1990.

Definitions?

This article needs some working definitions of what an artist is, and what exactly counts as a sale. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Is an artist one person or a group? Should a solo career be separate from a band that, that artist led? Eg: Jackson Five being part of the Michael Jackson statistic, Paul McCartney, the Beatles, The Wings... ect.

A sale is...? A single? An album? A download off iTunes or the like? Each track off a album/single?(Zonzhal 10:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

Total Garbage

Why does this page still exist? It seems like the only thing occurring here is that obsessed fans keep tinkering with the list, ensuring that their favorite artists achieve higher ranks. I vote to scrap it.

Why? there's no shame in that game ;-)

This is quite possibly the worst list on the site because of vandalism.

The concept is great, and there are some outstanding wikipedia MEMBERS who are contributing, but a majority of the people editing this article are doing it to promote their favorite band using no creditable sources. Therefore, I highly suggest that this list be completely restarted and carefully watched by a panel of people. Just a thought. Deckiller 01:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some musician haters deleting real stars out of the list. Many music greenhorns around here who know only american artists and mix up american sales with worldwide sales - this list ist about worldwide sales!!! It's true that some of the mentioned artists have had their main success in the rest of the world, not in the U.S.

This page really needs to be fixed

Please can anyone fix the page? i have been doing that but some one else has been over fixing it everyday!

If you don't know anything about sales, then leave the list alone.

Album Count

Led Zeppelin have only done nine studio albums, a few live albums, and a few greatest hits/best of albums. I find it hard to believe that this totals nineteen albums. Does this figure include foreing editions, collaboration efforts (for example Fame by David Bowie and John Lennon), or remastered editions?

Request For Protection

Due to the large levels of vandalism of this page over the last two days, I have listed it under Wikipedia:Requests for protection.Robdurbar 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not, by the way, intended to endorse any particular version of the list, but to reflect the fact that over the last 48 hours it has become almost impossible to distinguish the vandle edits and the serious edits. Perhpas a short protected period might cool it down again, and allow ana ttempt for a verifiable list to be created Robdurbar 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a SALES list

Not "your favourites" list. So if everyone could just get wikipedia to delete it...

Be Realistic

Don't put stupid things, for example, Britney Spears (possibly the worst singer and a disgrace to music), don't put her sales at like 100 million because she sold maybe 60% of that.

The people that have a career of atleast 20 years+ should have high sales because they have be around longer than musicians today who should'nt have sales in the 100 millions.

Don't worry, be happy: There's a "modern Talking"-fan around here who managed to pretend 120.000.000 sales of his favourite boygroup. Other German groups like the James LAst Orchestra which has had a huge worldwide success with (don't worry about quality!) simple dance music are thrown out regularly. Those who deserve to be mentioned in the list are often replaced by pretenders who only know such po'boys like John Travolta or Dieter Bohlen.

The best-selling artist of all-time?

Who should be on top at #1?

Michael Jackson recieved the World Music Award for "Best Selling Artist of the Millennium" in 2000, "Best-selling artist ever" in 1996, and "World's Best Selling Pop Artist", and "World's Best Selling Artist Of The Era" in 1993. In 2002, he recieved an American Music Awards for "Artist Of The Century", a Bambi award for "Artist of the millenium", an MTV Video Music Award for "Artist Of The Millennium". Surely all this must count for something. The Beatles didn't get this award, neither did Elvis. Michael Jackson is the best selling artist of all-time PERIOD. Source 61.69.178.169 12:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The WMA's only count sales since their founding. Elvis and The Beatles sold many millions before this. Also, I doubt the WMA's take back catalogue into much account for older artists. Furthermore, Mariah Carey has a string of awards for best selling female act, including one from the WMA's (dosen't mean it's true). Both Elvis and The Beatles have been awarded plaques by the RIAA for "world wide sales exceeding 1 billion", these awards count just as much as anything MJ's been handed by award shows run by record company publists. Therefore Elvis and The Beatles should be #1 for a billion sales each. Period!! Todd

Well, I have to add this, World Music Award title for Artist of the Millenium is based on IFPI countings which is purely records sales eversince they are able to (because WORLD SALES is pratically impossible to count in EVERY STATE OF THE WHOLE PLANET). RIAA is based on music companies/majors statements so is the World Guiness Book of Records. I do understand that WMA has been awarding only since 1989 but this is actually the only official objective statement about an artist sales figures such as Michael Jackson (no SONY BMG reference but IFPI). BUT it is not 100% SURE that Michael Jackson has sold more records than The Beatles or Elvis Presley besides the Artist of the Millenium award title means that MJ is the world best SOLO artist of all time and not only "artist". The truth is somewhere between The BJP (Beatles/Jackson/Presley) sure they are the TOP 3 WORLD BEST SELLING ARTISTS OF ALL TIME, who hold the GOLDEN MEDAL on this podium? it is quick impossible (for the moment) to confirm as no World Official and Objective Organisation exists for such statement. This is really an objective opinion of mine, the three I mentioned above (BJP) are undeniable true genius but keep in mind that other artists (on the list) need to pay attention because they need updatings. Thank you all for your HELP. Readerweb 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson should be at number 1. The Official Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recognizes him as the "Biggest Selling Musician of All Time". Also, The IFPI countings DO include record sales data prior to 1989. ~~Nbuhome~~

Michael Jackson's worldwide sales break-down

Below, you will see the sales figures of each and every one of his solo albums and singles, both with the Motown label and Epic label. I have also provided my calculations and what I can gather is Michael Jackson's total sales figure. I get these figures from very reliable sources, which I've also provided. If you disagree with these sales figures, or if my calculations are incorrect, please let me know. I am more than willing to debate this issue, if you feel Michael Jackson total sales are something different from what I have calculated.

Sources: "The MJ Fan Site", "MJ Fans United Club", "Michael Jackson Himself", "His Fans", " Captain Eo Productions", MJJ Productions press-releases

SOLO MOTOWN ALBUMS:

Got To Be There: 4.1 Million

Ben: 4.4 Million

Music & Me: 2 Million

Forever: 1.6 Million

Best Of MJ: 2.2 Million

One Day In Your Life: 1.5 Million

Farewell My Summer Love: 2 Million

Looking Back On Yesterday: 300, 000

The Original Soul of MJ: 370, 000

Anthology: 2.5 Million

TOTAL = 20, 970, 000

SOLO EPIC ALBUMS

Off The Wall: 20 Million

Thriller: 60 Million

Bad: 31 Million

Dangerous: 32 Million

HIStory: 36 Million (classified double album)

Blood On The Dance Floor: 6 Million

Invincible: 8 Million

Greatest Hits (HIStory Vol 1): 3 Million

Number Ones: 6.5 Million

The Ultimate Collection: 250, 000

Essential MJ: 2 Million

TOTAL = 204, 750, 000

TOTAL ALBUM SALES = 225, 720, 000

____________________________________________

SOLO MOTOWN SINGLES:

Got To Be There: 2.2 Million

Rockin Robin: 2.8 Million

Ben: 2.8 Million

I Wanna Be Where You Are: 1.3 Million

With A Child's Heart: 340, 000

We're Almost There: 400, 000

Just A Little Bit Of You: 860, 000

Aint No Sunshine: 280, 000

Morning Glow: 15, 000

Music & Me: 12, 000

Doggin Around: 5, 000

One Day In Your Life: 1.7 Million

Happy: 145, 000

Girl You're So Together: 90, 000

Touch The One You Love: 1, 000

Farewell My Summer Love: 780, 000

Twenty Five Miles: 10, 000

TOTAL = 13, 738, 000

SOLO EPIC SINGLES

As of 1989: 35 Million

1990-1993: 17 Million

1994-1997: 11 Million

1998-2003: 7 Million

TOTAL = 70 Million

TOTAL SINGLES SALES = 83, 738, 000

____________________________________________

TOTAL ALBUMS SALES: 225, 720, 000

+

TOTAL SINGLE SALES: 83, 738, 000

= 309, 458, 000

(Note: The figures from Motown are from 1990, since then (with most of his Motown albums being re-released on CD) he has probably sold 10 million more, bringing the total to 319 Million)

MICHAEL JACKSON'S TOTAL SOLO ALBUM AND SINGLES SALES: 310, 000, 000 (approx.)

61.68.80.124 06:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackson/Beatles/Elvis/Zeppelin

All discussion about Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Led Zeppelin have been merged into this one discussion

There is alot of dispute about Michael Jackson total sales figure. It's gone from 250 Million, to 300 Million, back to 250 Million and now it's down to 200 Million. The current figure of 200 Million is ridiculous, and doesn't do Michael Jackson justice. Alot of people, when calculating Michael Jackson's total sales figure, dismiss his Motown albums. During his career with the Motown label he released 10 solo albums, as well as the many albums he recorded with the Jackson Five. Another thing people often dismiss is his singles sales. The majority of Elvis Presley's total sales (which is not 1 Billion, but a figure much lower) is made up of singles sales. In Elvis Presley's time, singles sold alot more than albums. So if Elvis Presley's total sales include his album and singles sales, then to be fair, so should Michael Jackson's total sales.

A couple of things to ponder here when comparing album sales. First off, you say "then to be fair, so should Michael Jackson's total sales. Below, you will see the sales figures of each and every one of his solo albums and singles, both with the Motown label and Epic label."

It looks to be unfair, but that's the way the industry was back then, and it is obviously different today. Why not take into account that back in Elvis' day half the people in the United States didn't have a record player in their home, and record players were even far more scarse for people in other countries. The industry back then was different and so were the circumstances. You can't make direct comparisions.

As far as his albums with the Jackson Five, there isn't any reason to add them to the total either. I don't see Paul McCartney's numbers being added to the Beatles or vice versa. True he was part of the Jackson five, but they he wasn't the only artist in the group. If he was the only artist in the group, then yes it would make sens to add the numbers into the total.

Secondly, it's your sources..at least you have listed some names, that's better than many of the people in this discussion have done. But unless there is a link to the exact spot you got the sources from, then they really are useless. For example, you list "People" as a source. A source for what figure??. What exactly does People say about the figure?? It's probably some writer who quotes someone else, who says something like "It's estimated that MJ has sold blah.blah.blah amount of records. You see what I mean, it looks like you just made them up, you might as well add someone like George Bush or Christopher Columbus to the list as well, it wouldn't make any difference. Try supporting your claims, and not with more unsupported info like his fan club.

Just for the record. I don't care how many albums MJ has sold. I look at this discussion page, and see a bunch of people saying "hooray for my favorite artist", and alot of statements and figures being thrown around, but aren't being backed up. While the RIAA numbers, don't reflect the whole world market, at least they're accurate, and can be backed up.

For MJ you take the highest figure given, for everyone else you don't, you can't get more bending the figures than that. MJ's numbers are no more right than anyone elses and that has to be taken into the accounts. His records are by no means selling like hot cakes today (like you and his other fans like to claim), just look at the album sales charts.

Actually, his latest CD, Essential MJ has sold alot (2 Million allready) and it's only been out for 3-4 months. This is a worlwide list, not a US list. Michael Jackson is alot more successful worldwide in places like Europe where Essential MJ is still in the top 20, even top 10 in some countries. Number Ones (from 2003) is still in some top 100 album charts in countries in Europe, 2 years after its release. Besides, Michael Jackson's sales don't need to be selling alot at the moment. They sold heaps when those albums came out, and those figures are what make up the grand total of 300 million. Elvis and The Beatles are selling next to nothing these days, whereas Michael Jackson still sells a couple of thousands copies of Thriller, Off The Wall, Bad and his other famous albums from years ago, when the latest Soundscan results come in. 300 Million is probably the lowest your could put Michael Jackson's total sales at. If you went any lower, you'd be kidding yourself. His total sales have been said to be more than 400 million. Also, when calculating Michael Jackson sales total, keep in mind the sales of his solo albums with Motown records, as well as his Epic records. I can't see why you can keep chopping 50 million off Michael Jackson's total, but boost The Beatles and Elvis Presley's totals up to 1 Billion +. Everyone knows that figure is a joke. When Elvis Presley's 25th anniversary of his death came around (2002), suddenly his sales were over 1 Billion. When this estimation surfaced, Beatles fans uped the Beatles sales to over a billion because they hold tight to the belief that they are the biggest selling artist ever. Michael Jackson is not 250 million, he is higher, well over 300 million. The Beatles and Elvis aren't 1 Billion, they are much lower but at least over 500 million. But definately not over 1 Billion. Street walker 08:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Give it up already. The Beatles and Elvis sell next to nothing? then how come they keep getting in the charts too? I guess no one in the charts sells, unless, of course, you're Michael Jackson (lol). You also say elsewhere MJ is the #1 seller ever, more than Elvis, more than Beatles, then now, all of a sudden, it's they have outsold him by 200 million. You contradict yourself time and time again. Thus proving you don't know yourself, even though you like to claim you are right. The Essential MJ has sold 2 million, maybe, but that still doesn't account for all these claimed extra sales of his back catalogue over the years, still selling millions (apparently), without the chart action in sales charts around the world for those kinds of sales. Look at the chart action for the essential. The Best world-wide chart action he has had for a number of years, so therefore his other albums, with much less chart action than that are selling nowhere near that these days. In the 1990s The Beatles topped the album charts more times than Jackson and in the 2000s have sold far more albums, as has Presley, backed up by global sales charts. The Beatles Number Ones album alone has shifted more copies than all of MJ's combined, never mind adding in their old albums that are still selling. This is all in the minds of MJ fans who still like to think he is the music worlds #1 force - those days have gone. Presley's Billionith sale was credited in 1986, not on the 25th anniversary of his death like you claim. Boris

It's impossible that Beatles 1 sold more than all of Michael Jackson's albums when Michael Jackson is credited for having the best selling album of all-time (Thriller), and for a short period in the late 80's, he also had the second best selling album of all-time (Bad). I'm not 100% sure of the Beatles 1 sales, but I know Michael Jackson's #1's album from 2003 sold just as much, if not more. MJ's #1's sold 7.5 million. 61.69.147.153 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so! The Michael Jackson articles say his sold 6.5 million worldwide. The Beatles 1 has sold 10 million US (per RIAA) and 28 million worldwide (per Apple, see 1 (album)). Not exactly close!

As for MJ not selling much these days with his old records, check the latest Soundscan results when they come in each week. Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad and Dangerous still sell a couple of thousand each week and over time that adds up. I am in no was discrediting The Beatles of Elvis. I know both these acts sold a hell of alot. I am not denying they still can find success these days. But compared to Michael Jackson, their old albums aren't selling nearly as much.

I don't see any stats here to back that up. Even if they were here, I doubt that there would be anything to back them up. All I see here is a bunch of B.S. being spread around with nobody able to back anything up.

This is a list of the best selling artists of all-time, it is based on fact not opinion. If you want to say Michael Jackson looks weird, or has strange sexual tendencies, fine, but give him the credit he deserves for the amount of records he's sold which, accordin to Sony is 400M+, but since all those 400M can't be accounted for, the most accurate sales figure for Michael Jackson is 300M. Not 250M. You can't chop off 50M just because you don't like him.61.69.128.8 05:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Jackson albums don't sell a couple of thousand every week, they sell a couple of thousand some weeks. That is more than evident from the soundscan figures. It adds up, yes, but not to all the millions you are claiming. The Beatles figures are higher tho, as are Presleys they sell more than Jacksons old albums. Also, sales from the 1980's (and 1990's) don't count towards a total in the 2000s and it is highly true when it is said the beatles "1" album sold more than every MJ album combined this decade Des.

Yes, I agree with that. Of the albums released this decade, the Beatles have sold more than Jackson. But this is not a list of best selling artists this decade. If it was, Eminem or N*Sync would be on top. This is a list of best selling artists of all-time, and of all-time Michael Jackson has sold 350 Million.

And what, pray tell, is this fan website's source? It doesn't say. Maybe it's just some Jackson fan just making things up? Gotta do better than that now.

OK, firstly, please sign your comments. Secondly, all information on that website is accurate. You'll notice the same sales figures on Michael Jackson's official website www.mjjsource.com . Thirdly, I'm yet to be given a link to a source that justifies the Beatles and Elvis's 1 Billion sales figure.

Well, mjjsource isn't what I'd call "official", it's just a site run by his brother Randy that's obviously on an under-powered server since it keeps timing out on me before I can find these alleged sales figures. I'm not going to sign my comments because I'm embarrassed to even be in this discussion. Michael Jackson was an extremely talented artist who sold a huge pile of records before during and a little bit after his transformation into the world's most famous freakazoid. End of story.

The sales figures on MJJSource are official. They come direct from ER/SME, so ofcource they are official. Michael Jackson has sold a minimum of 330 Million. End of story. 61.68.80.105 12:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not provide a direct link to ER/SME's statistics?. Perhaps that number is correct, but you're just quoting some site who's quoting someone else. Also, using a "fan club" type of site like MJJSource as a source of information does not lend any credibilty to the discussion.

No it's not the end of story. MJ's fans and his publisist are the biggest bulls**tters on earth!! Mickey D

These sales figures don't come from fans or publicists, they come from record companies. The Beatles and Elvis's 1 Billion figure comes from fans, but apparently that's enough to give hem the top spots. 61.68.80.105 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to see some links to the record companies themselves, that actually show the number of sales. All I see here is a lot of conjecture, especially from MJ fans, where numbers just seem to get pulled from a hat. I don't even know if you could trust the numbers as they appear from the record companies. Let's face it, anyone, even a person from a record company can just throw out a number and who's to say how accurate it is. The people who wouyld know best, are the artists accountants, as they are the ones receiving money from the royalties. You're never going to get the exact numbers, ....The most accurate numbers you'll get are the numbers from RIAA. They don't represent the whole world, but at least they're accurate.

get to know what your talking about before you make silly claims. The Elvis and Beatles sales come from RCA and EMI and they are.... record companies. Also, record companies are publisits. So please, don't try and make out you know more than other people when you don't know anything, all you want to do is add a few hundred million on MJ's sales so it looks better. Mickey D

There have been 330 Million albums and singles released under the name "Michael Jackson". There have also been a further 150 Million sold by groups which Michael Jackson lead (Jackson Five, The Jacksons). This is not BS, this comes from reliable sources which I have stated above. This figure is no less accurate that the rumoured 1 Billion figure both The Beatles and Elvis apparently sold. You can't say "you're just getting that info from a fan site", when the 1 Billion figure was made up by fans and journo's. You also contradict yourself when you say MJ's sales figure comes from unreliable sources because record companies are publicists, and then say Elvis Presley's and The Beatle's 1 Billion figure comes from record companies. I don't see what you're problem is. Michael Jackson's 330 Million figure is not interfering with the beloved Beatles placing on the list. Michael Jackson should be at the top of the list, but I am letting you have your beloved Beatles at #1. Michael Jackson was proclaimed the biggest selling artist of all-time by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. But, you can have it your way and keep the Beatles on top. But I don't see why you then have to lower Michael Jackson's sales to 200 Million. Where on Earth does this figure come from? That is ridiculous and highly unjustified. Michael Jackson has sold 330 Million albums and singles in his solo career. A further 150 Million as lead singer, and for most records, cheif songwriter and producer, of The Jackson Five and The Jacksons. This argument needs not go on anymore. We should not be fussing about as artist who's sales are almost 100% accurate. We should instead be finding a more accurate sales figure for Elvis and The Beatles. Elvis Presley's rumoured sales figure of 1 Billion is completely false. It's a part of a structured and hyped propaganda that fueled such a theory. Once you make a detailed audit of all his records, you come to a total that range from 300 to 350 million records. No where near 1 Billion. As for the Beatles, I don't know, but what I do know is, Paul McCartney was awarded a Rhodium Award, in 1979, for reaching a combined Beatles/Wings/Solo sales figure of 200 Million. Now if that is The Beatles, Wings and Paul McCartney combined, then The Beatles sales figure alone must be dismal. This is 1979, so since then I doubt The Beatles sold an extra 800 Million records, even if the death of John Lennon caused a boom in Beatles sales, this in no way accounts for 800 Million records. What even more proves that neither Elvis or The Beatles sold 1 Billion, is that Michael Jackson was hailed as the biggest selling artist of all-time, because he was the only artist to exceed 400 Million sales, and this was his solo records and Jacksons records combined. So if he's the only artist ever to do this, then obviously neither Elvis or The Beatles have sold over 400 Million. 61.69.128.103 07:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I also just fixed up some stuff in the estimation table. Michael Jackson has sold 250 Million solo albums worlwide, not 194 Million. Also, since the release of "Essential MJ" Michael's US sales have gone from 59.5 Million to 60 Million. This in turn effected the ratio of his US sales to his worlwide sales. 61.69.128.103 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, people should know that EMI executive said in 2001 (sorry, no link) that USA were about half of all Beatles catalogue sales. Lets do the math: USA's RIAA wholesales are: 168 million albums + 22 million singles = 190 million * 2 ~= 380 million. Even taking into consideration the developments of market in the last 10-20 years, when third country markets (after USA and UK) grew considerably, there is no way how sales figures could be about billion. More rational estimation of [b]sales of Beatles are 400 million records worldwide[/b].

Elvis' half billion worldwide estimation looks more reliable, at the first sight, but more than 2/3 of his sales are said to be domestic, and from the rest quantity considerable part is UK. He sold about 121 million albums in the USA (certified 116m and prior to RIAA's certifications 5m) and about 60 million singles. This means that [b]globally Elvis sold like 300 million records[/b] (singles are like 100 million of that quantity).

Also, when we estimate market's volume in 50s-60s-70s, we should remember that prior to Jackson's "Thriller" album (1982) the highest worldwide seller was Beatles' "Sergent Pepper..." with 14 million copies (globally). "Thriller" did 32 million to the 1984 and 40 million to the end of 1985 (Now "Thriller" sales are 59 million worldwide). Jackson sold 20 million copies of his album outside of USA.

I call "bull$hit" on this post. SPLHCB is not even the Beatles' best-selling album!

Additionally, to see rational sales figures for Beatles and Elvis people should know that SoundScan counted for Beatles in the USA in 1991-2004 years about 19 million copies of all of their albums, and global sales for that period are estimated in quantity of about 50 million copies, including 27 million copies of Beatles' "#1s" album. Notice that without super promoted and successful #1s albums sales for 14 years would be about 23 million copies worldwide. This calculation is the answer for those people who worry that RIAA does not certify albums before 0,5 million copies sold, hence cumulative RIAA sales could not include many records that did not reach that volume of sales. SoundScan does not depend on this, it counts everything, each unit possible, and it showed that the volume of uncertified by RIAA albums can not be significant.

Well, this sales rate SoundScan showed makes Beatles/Elvis sales are no more than 15-30 million a decade. For comparison, Michael Jackson sells like 25-35 million a decade extrapolated -- if calculated on the basis of "silent years" (no promotion, no releases, no nothing: like 1990, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, et cetera, when Jackson's pace is about 2.5-3.5 million albums a year).

This means that [b]there is technically no way how Beatles could sell billion records or Elvis sell half billion records worldwide.[/b] To answer Tony Galvin's doubts about how RIAA counts albums with different ID#s, I can say they add-up everything to one unit. Galvin estimates that domestic cumulative sales of Elvis' albums are about 160 million, he adds 45 million to RIAA figure because there were a lot of albums that sold below 0.5 million copies, hence uncertified, as well as albums with different ID#s. (Galvin's article: http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/500_million_elvis_fans_cant_be_wrong_or_can_they.shtml) However, as I said above, all the facually same albums, though with different colours, covers, ID#s, et cetera, are always united/grouped/counted as one. So RIAA's 116 million figure can be actually expanded to about than like 130 million for Elvis' USA album sales.

Estimation of US/World ratios that listed in the article this discussion created for is not applicable towards Michael Jackson. His USA sales are about 27% of global ones, he is the most international USA artist/group. In Iraq and China children did not knew who Bush or the Pope was, but they knew how to Moonwalk. 2200 journalists from 34 countries from five continents were covering Jackson's trial -- thrice bigger than any other act like OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson or whoever else before in the world. In fact, this was huger or equial than any biggest international event ever happened in history. Jackson had the biggest international tour worldwide, visiting like, in his tours, 40 countries with upto 15 million tickets sold abroad. In 2000s, Jackson sold about 25 million records worldwide, and only like 5 million of those sales were in the USA.

(In 1991, Jackson released album "Dangerous", which wholesold 14 million copies in 14 days, the records that was not beaten ever since. Guinness book is incorrect here again, claiming that sale of 13 million copies of Beatles' 1 is record).

Jackson's Epic Records (ER) worldwide solo albums wholesales are about 210 million (grows 3 million each year without new releases or promotion). For the USA market, RIAA certifies wholesales, and USA is 27% of world sales, and ratio is 3.7. Plus about 70 million ER solo singles ~= 285 million ER solo records. In 1990, Motown said they sold to that date about 30 million solo records of Michael Jackson. To this date, the quantity can be estimated to be like 45 million. This makes about [b]Jackson's sales about 330 million solo records worldwide[/b].

In 1984 Motown said they sold 110 million records of "Jackson 5" group. In 1990, ER said they sold 30 million records of "The Jacksons" group. To this day, estimation gives that those two groups' cumulative sales are abuot 170 million records. Thus, there are about 500 million records with Jackson's voice and name, of which about 330 million are solo records.

That is why Jackson was the "Artist of Millennium" by World Music Awards, official IFPI partner (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), in 2000, as well as the biggest selling artist of all time in 1996 and 1993. It was not Elvis Presley, Iglesias, Elton John or whoever else.84.204.114.194

If we're adding solo records and group sales together then why didn't they give it to Paul McCartney? Your "facts" are hyped towards Jackson and should be taken with a pinch of salt. The world music awards awarding him "Best selling act ever" was laughable, they also gave Mariah Carey an award for "Best selling female", again laughable. You're fooling noone. A look at world sales charts easily shows both The Beatles and Presley with MUCH MORE success than Jackson (including his group efforts) and Madonna with more success than Mariah Carey, those world music awards meant nothing. 195.93.21.40 18:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The information on Jackson here is highly incorrect. Firstly it dosen't matter how many journalists were at his trial, that dosen't effect album sales (as can be seen by the small sales of his last album). I notice how for MJ this person is using claims made from Epic records, but for Presley and Beatles, outside sources are being used, not record label claims, thus making this information complete nonsence. The truth is Elvis and The Beatles have sold a lot more records than Jackson.

What about Diana Ross, solo and with The Supremes? Des

Am I missing something? Because when I went to the link provided, it said "With more than 200 million albums sold worldwide, Led Zeppelin is the biggest-selling rock group in history." Nowhere does it say 600 Million. I do understand that this 200m figure does not include singles. The average album to single ratio is 3. So that means a third of 200m of 66m. That all adds up to 266 million, not 600 million. If you give Zeppelin the benefit of the doubt, you can bring it up to around about 270 Million. I wont change the figure yet, but I'll let whoever stated this figure give reasoning behind it, if they can't, Zeppelin's figure will be brought down to 270 Million.

Your "album to single ratio" is meaningless, since it varies so much between eras and artists. Led Zeppelin was always a very album-oriented artist; their hit singles were few and far between, and their most famous song "Stairway to Heaven" was never even released as a single. For artists active in the 1950s and early-to-mid 1960s, the opposite may be true. For example, I would guess that during their active lifetime, the Beatles sold more singles in the UK than albums.

I also noticed the article said Zeppelin is the biggest-selling rock group in history with 200 Million albums sold worldwide. If this is a true statement,

There you go, you see. What was this statement? Probably something that one of the ex-Zep members' publicists said to Matt Lauer (no recording industry expert) before an interview. How much evidenciary weight would you give such a statement? What is the job of publicists?

it blows the Beatles 1 Billion records rumour out of the water. In 1979, the Guiness Book Awards recognised the Beatles for record sales exceeding 200 million. I also read an interesting bit of information the other day saying the in the last 20 years (since 1985) the Beatles have sold 50 million records, 20 of those belong to the #1's album. That means the Beatles couldn't have sold more than 250 million records. The article which is cited in the article next to Zeppelin's entry, states that Led Zeppelin are the biggest-selling rock group in history, and it makes perfect sense. The Beatles have sold 250 Million, and Led Zeppelin have sold 270 million, making them the biggest-selling rock group in history. So suck on that, I just proved Bealtes 1 billion rumour wrong!

Now you're cherry-picking stats to support your overall agenda. A vague 1979 Guiness number is superior to the current vague Guiness number (the one billion that the ext ref is for). EMI's statement for the Beatles is all wrong, but SME's statement for Michael Jackson is all right. That's not good scientific method. And the Beatles since 1985 statement seems a bit off as well, since they got a lot of sales when all their albums came out on CD for the first time in the late 1980s. (And by the way, hadn't you better hope the Beatles ongoing sales are really good, since the publishing royalties from them are the only thing keeping Michael Jackson financially solvent? Oh well, different topic.)

No other artist, apart from Michael Jackson, has sold over 400 million. Michael Jackson was proclaimed the biggest selling artist ever by the IFPI. That's because he exceeded sales of 400 million. The catch was that it included Jackson 5 and The Jacksons sales. At this time (1993) he had sold 280 million solo records, the remaining 70 million were sold by The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons. Since then 480 million records have been sold with Michael Jackson's voice and name, 330 million of those solo. So it's impossible that the Beatles or Elvis have sold 1 Billion because no artist in history has sold over 400 billion, apart from Michae Jackson/The Jacksons combined. Street walker 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Get your point, but don't want to get into a thing over the Beatles catalogue (mind you, Michael Jackson gets more money from his own songs than Beatles songs, and it has nothing to do with sales, its because he wrote the majority of his songs and the Jacksons later songs, so he also gets songwriting royalties, whereas McCartney still get his songwriting royalties).

Now you're really drinking the Koolaid. Every thing I've ever read says that Jackson is dependent upon the Beatles catalogue to keep his sinking financial empire from bankruptcy, and that he's desperately hanging on to it. I gotta admit though, you do some good spin. If Jackson wasn't broke, he should definitely hire you as a publicist.

Now see, that's where your wrong. I may drink the Koolaid, but you read too many tabloids. They love to see Michael Jackson is going bankrupt. Just as they loved to say Yoko Ono was splitting the Beatles apart, and how they loved to say Presley cheated on his wife. Tabloids make up a lot of BS. Street walker 08:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_discography: there stands the sales are 106,5 millions without the singles.

Please provide better sources and factual evidence to prove that these two artists sold over a billion records. I don't mean some random article where a news journalists has stated Elvis or The Beatles have sold 1 Billion copies. I want a website where the sales of each and every one of their singles and albums are provided. Even if the best the website can provide is estimates. I know the estimated sales of atleast each Bealtes albums can be found on the net, and I'm sure the sales of each Presley record can be found somewhere on the net. Provide better, reliable sources or the sales of both these artists will have come down to the last official sales figure provided by their record companies. It's not fair that other artists are given the last known official sales figure provided by their record companies (which for some was more than 20 years ago since their record companies gave an official sales figure). Either than or they are given the lowest possible estimate. While Elvis and The Beatles are given the highest, most ridiculous and unjustified sales figure possible. 61.68.80.124 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. There have been more than 3,000 Elvis titles in print (studio albums, compilations, boxed sets) over the years. So a break down is probably not gpoing to be found - to long. A billion records for him is not out of the question on that basis, especially inclusive of his singles success. The Beatles had more chart action than anyone else ever (one week they hogged the whole top 3 singles in the USA, then the top 5 singles in the USA, top 6 in aus, top 9 in Canada, etc) in 1964 alone they had over 30 top 40 hits in the USA and the total chart action inclusive of all singles and albums world-wide is better than that of anyone, far better and let's not kid ourselves by trying to claim Elvis and the Beatles don't sell a heck of a lot of back catalog. Also, this is not the biggest figure given for either, sales claims for Presley have been as high as 2 billion and the Beatles 1.5 billion. What you're suggesting is if a break down can't be found, we move Elvis and Beatles down to a figure than puts your favorite acts nearer them, sorry, but that's not the reality. Mikey D.

It's impossible that The Beatles or Elvis sold 1 Billion based on the information in the topic at the top of this talk page. Give me a link to a source that justifies that the Bealtes and Elvis sold 1 Billion. 61.68.80.105 12:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That dosen't make it impossible, that's just fans of other bands and singers belitting the claims, it dosen't prove anything. People going on about how abba, mj and the eagles are just as popular dosen't alter facts that are backed up by the worlds sales charts. Mickey D

I'm yet to see a source. 61.69.128.103 06:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat something I said in the Michael Jackson section of this talk page.

Elvis Presley's rumoured sales figure of 1 Billion is completely false. It's a part of a structured and hyped propaganda that fueled such a theory. Once you make a detailed audit of all his records, you come to a total that range from 300 to 350 million records. No where near 1 Billion. As for the Beatles, I don't know, but what I do know is, Paul McCartney was awarded a Rhodium Award, in 1979, for reaching a combined Beatles/Wings/Solo sales figure of 200 Million. Now if that is The Beatles, Wings and Paul McCartney combined, then The Beatles sales figure alone must be dismal. This is 1979, so since then I doubt The Beatles sold an extra 800 Million records, even if the death of John Lennon caused a boom in Beatles sales, this in no way accounts for 800 Million records. What even more proves that neither Elvis or The Beatles sold 1 Billion, is that Michael Jackson was hailed as the biggest selling artist of all-time, because he was the only artist to exceed 400 Million sales, and this was his solo records and Jacksons records combined. So if he's the only artist ever to do this, then obviously neither Elvis or The Beatles have sold over 400 Million.

The figures currently stated on the list are alot more accurate that the 1 Billion figure. Thank-you who ever made these changes. Keep the list this way, it is alot more accurate. This is really good, we are definately taking giant leaps forward in making a more accurate list. Goos work people. 61.69.128.103 07:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You would think that, you're the one that did the list! You also keep replying to yourself to say what a great job you're doing (hint: only you think it - so it's not true). Don't make us laugh by telling us Beatles/Wings/McCartney combined sold only 200 million. The award was for selling "AT LEAST 100 million singles and AT LEAST 100 million albums", it wasn't an award a dead on figure. If it were and if that was true, with all the success he has had, then that would bring everyone else's figure down too, and put MJ (all sales, including group ones) on about 50 million all in. Mickey D.

IMO, Elvis and The Beatles should be removed alltogether. Their record sales are unknown. Where as numerous soruces have stated Michael Jackson has sold half a billion, invluding Jackson 5 and The Jacksons sales. Also, I did not change Elvis's and The Beatles' sales figures, someone else did. I merely changed Jackson's sales to 330 Million, which is how much he has sold. 61.69.147.153 00:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The person above me is an idiot. He wants the Beatles and Elvis Presley removed from the list? What a joke. Michael Jackson fanboys are the worst of the lot. No one's world wide sales are known. That's why this list is guesstimation garbage and should be deleted.

You're fooling noone. Jacksons sales are just as unknown as Elvis, so if Elvis is removed, so is MJ. Of cpurse you think elvis and the beatles should be taken off, anything to get MJ on top. However, if elvis and the beatles have a cause to be removed, then this list shouldn't exsist at all and be deleted cause what your saying is you can't have a list of the best selling music artists.

Actually, I agree with you. This list should be deleted. Too many guesses. I don't want Michael Jackson to be on top, I just want his record sales as accurate as possible, and because the individual sales of all his albums are known, you can work out his record sales that way. He's sold 330 Million, and I don't see how anyone can question that. It's statisitics. Where does the 200 Million figure come from? I'll be happy to keep the Beatles and Elvis Presley's sales at 1 Billion, if you keep Michael Jackson's sales at 330 Million, and not keep pushing them down to 200 Million. 61.69.147.153 00:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Just some of my research to further disprove the 1 billion rumour...

I also noticed the article said Zeppelin is the biggest-selling rock group in history with 200 Million albums sold worldwide. If this is a true statement, it blows the Beatles 1 Billion records rumour out of the water. In 1979, the Guiness Book Awards recognised the Beatles for record sales exceeding 200 million. I also read an interesting bit of information the other day saying the in the last 20 years (since 1985) the Beatles have sold 50 million records, 20 of those belong to the #1's album. That means the Beatles couldn't have sold more than 250 million records. The article which is cited in the article next to Zeppelin's entry, states that Led Zeppelin are the biggest-selling rock group in history, and it makes perfect sense. The Beatles have sold 250 Million, and Led Zeppelin have sold 270 million, making them the biggest-selling rock group in history. So suck on that, I just proved Bealtes 1 billion rumour wrong!

No other artist, apart from Michael Jackson, has sold over 400 million. Michael Jackson was proclaimed the biggest selling artist ever by the IFPI. That's because he exceeded sales of 400 million. The catch was that it included Jackson 5 and The Jacksons sales. At this time (1993) he had sold 280 million solo records, the remaining 70 million were sold by The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons. Since then 480 million records have been sold with Michael Jackson's voice and name, 330 million of those solo. So it's impossible that the Beatles or Elvis have sold 1 Billion because no artist in history has sold over 400 billion, apart from Michae Jackson/The Jacksons combined. Street walker 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Presley: most people, apart from Presley fans, are aware that the 1 Billion figure was made up. His official website contradicts the 1 Billion rumour by saying 60% of Presley's sales are made up of albums and singles sold in the US. The RIAA website states that to date, Elvis Presley has sold 116.5 Million. If this is 60% of his worldwide sales, then his worldwide sales must be 194.16 Million, if I did the maths right. This is only albums mind you, which means he would've had to sell about 805 Million singles. That's unlikely, because usually albums sell alot more than singles. However, I have heard that in Presley's day, singles sold more than albums, but even so, 800 singles to 200 albums seems unlikely.

It's funny that his own website stats that Elvis Presley only sold 194 Million albums worldwide. Because that means that Jackson, with 250 Million albums sold worlwide, has sold 56 Million more albums than Presley. That's quite alot. What will the Presley fans do now? Their idol beaten by a skinny black man from Gary, Indiana. I no its bad to boast, but I get sick and tired of Elvis fans, and the media, gloating about Presley selling more records than Jackson. Do the maths Presley fans. "The King's" own website states he has sold exactly 56 Million albums less than Michael Jackson, the man you all love to hate. Street walker 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just found an interesting bit of info on wiki's Elvis Presley article. Elvis has sold 50 million singles in the US (this figure comes from RIAA). So according to RIAA, he has sold 116.5 Million albums and 50 Million singles in the US. So in total, Elvis has sold 166.5 Million records in the US. His offical website said the US accounts for 60% of his total worldwide sales. So that means, his total worldwide sales must be, 277.5 Million. Done. Elvis has not sold 1 Billion records, but less that a third of that, 280 Million (approx.) MYTH BUSTED! Street walker 08:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Who messed with this list? The Beatles are pushed way down in the list and they are listed as being active 70s through 00s. How wrong can you get?

By the looks of it, because the 'years active' says 70s-00s, someone swapped the Bealtes for Michael Jackson. But not to worry, they are back where they should be, on top.

Who changed Elvis Presley's sales number to 1 Billion? I thought it been established that that figure was made up by tabloids and that Elvis Presley has sold no more than 300 Million albums and singles worldwide. Also, I don't believe the Beatles sold half a billion. Look at the research done further up the page and you'll see that the Beatles most accurate sales number would be 400 Million. Street walker 06:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing alot of research and alot of calculations to find the most accurate possible sales figure for the top ten artists. I've said it many times before, but I'll say it once more in very brief terms...

The Beatles - EMI stated in 2001 that USA account for about half of all Beatles catalogue sales. USA's RIAA wholesales are: 168 million albums + 22 million singles = 190 million * 2 = 380 million. Taking into account un-cretified albums and singles, The Beatles have sold approximately 400 million. Or 545 million as reported by Guiness. That's only the sales until 1974. Afterwards the business with their songs was taken over by coverbands, so that the sales of original Beatles albums may have risen only slightly since then, maybe up to 600.000.000. The 1 billion estimations may include Lennon's, McCartney's and HArrison's later records, but THE group who's sales are worth to discuss here ist the original Beatles. And some know-nothing-about-music ever adds the 90s to the group's years of activity. Lennon had been murdered in the 80s, so there can't be any serious beatles-recording of the 90s.

Michael Jackson - His worldwide sales for each and every album and single are known, and have been known for a number of years. Simple maths tells you that 300m Epic records, plus 50m Motown records = 350 Million.

Elvis Presley - His website states that the US accounts for 60% of his sales. His US sales (according to RIAA) are 166. So if that is 60% of his worldwide sales, then his ww sales must be 280 Million. Taking into account his un-certified records, Elvis Presley has sold approximately 300 Million.

If RIAA knows all about the worldwide popularity of american artists? Elvis was a real hot shot. Worldwide. From Germany to the Phillippines he had a huge lot of fans. To estimate his sales near that of the Beatles can be near reality.

May I stress how very unlikely and virtually impossible for any artist to sell 1 Billion records. Even for Elvis who has released hundreds of records. He would've had to release 1000 albums and singles selling 1 million each. I know he didn't do that because he didn't release 1000 records, and most of his records sold an average of 500,000. No artist in history has sold 1 Billion records PERIOD.

INCORRECT. With singles, studio albums, hits packages, live albums and other complations over the years, Presley's total release of records with his music far exceeds the 1,000 you are talking about and the current figure for him on this this (330 million) is far too low for him PERIOD!!! Ted

There's been some dispute about Jackson's sales of the HIStory album and the Blood On The Dance Floor album. I don't have a source, because this sort of info isn't published online (however, I will look for it), but Caption EO productions (closely assoiciated with MJJ Productions) said HIStory sold 25 million atleast, and BOTDF sold 15 million making it the biggest selling remix album of all-time.Street walker 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Accoridng to graceland, Moody Blue sold over 14 million by 1990, so let's move Elvis up the list on gracelands figures then! Ted

The Jackson fans rubbish Elvis' sales figures by taking two sources and splitting the info in half. Yes, it was said by Elvis' site that 60% of his sales were in the USA, but on that site it says his US sales are 600 million, so if you want to use that site as a source then use all the info, not just one line and then use the RIAA figures. Going by the volume of Presley releases (thousands of albums over the years, most of which were never kept tabs on by the RIAA) it is indeed possible he is the biggest seller ever.

What a cheap joke this whole list is. Come on, THINK, there's now way that The Beatles or Elvis could have been sold over 1 000 000 000 ******* million records. No way! And also, Michael Jackson is often claimed to be the most sold artist of all time. This is just a playground for fanatic fans.

The thing is that this list doesn't do justice for any artist, because this is just a joke.

Delete this. I mean really.

It is possible that Elvis sold more than 1 billion. There have been well over 1000 Elvis albums issued worldwide. He also had the most success in global singles charts. He also sold many EP's. A Billion may not be out of the question at all for The Beatles either. They too sold many EP's in the 60's as well as singles and albums and there is no way anyone can claim truthfully that their albums haven't continued to sell well. The same for Presley. There is no reason to doubt the claims that these are the 2 biggest selling acts ever.

It's amazing or it's a shame to see how many people does not how to count but only refering on their idol websites. I'm not a Jacko fan but he's the best selling artist of all time according to World Music Award which is an musical industry institution that took in reference the exact record sales instead of public audience for nomination. 1 billion? please stop the joke, I didn't know that Elvis and Lenon crew had fans from Mars or other galaxies. Please make this Wikipedia a serious stuff.

First of all John Lennon wasn't the only member of the beatles. Secondly, the world music award didn't include sales from the 50s or 60s (Elvis was the worlds number 1 act in the 50s, and beatles in the 60s) and i doubt it didn't go into much dept over their back catalogue either. Also, they gave mariah carey the award for best selling female (a claim that few other sources would support). So, don't try and tell us the world music awards said so, that's it. It's not. It's not a joke that Elvis and The beatles could have sold 1 billion records. There are 6 billion people in the world. They are the biggest acts of alltime. They have issued many singles, albums, eps, all of which sold a heck of a lot. Wikipedia is serious, so let's stick to the facts - elvis and the beatles far outsold michael jackson, led zeppelin, the eagles, bon jovi, abba and everyone else.

Ok let's just make it obvious and clear. According to RIAA and Elvis official website, Elvis Presley has sold more than 180 million records in the US (albums + singles). According to Elvis official website, It is mentioned an estimation of 40% of his global record sales have been outside the US. So that is to say ELVIS PRESLEY has sold 180 million records (US) + 120 million records (rest of the world) TOTAL = 300 million records sold. Not to mention that in this figure the uncertified records from 1956 to 1958 are taken into account. Concerning The Beatles, according to RIAA the band has sold 168 millions albums + 20 millions singles so 190 millions records approx in the US. Could The BEATLES have sold more than 800 millions records in the rest of the world if they had sold 1 billion ??? Not to mention that America is the biggest music market ever. So to sum up the 3 best selling artists (or names if you will) of all time are 1) The Beatles (more than 400 million records worldwide but not 1 billion) 2) Michael Jackson (350 million records wordlwide without his brothers) 3) Elvis Presley (300 million records worldwide but the best selling solo artist of all time in the US)

Stop talking piffle, all the "points" you have just made have been proven wrong in this debate already.

BEST SELLING ACTS EVER 1) The Beatles (more than 1 billion) 2) Elvis Presley (more than 1 billion records worldwide) 3) Michael Jackson (250 million worldwide solo)

• Just taken a look at the various sources for MJ's sales figures. Only two of them mention numbers of records sold, 1 appears to be a page that has copied his wikipedia entry, and the other 4/5 are compeltely irrelevant Robdurbar 15:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Various artists in alphabetical order

ABBA

It's sad how inaccurate this list is. ABBA has sold faar more records than they are acconted for in this list. No one can know for sure, but its current figure do not do them justice. They were popular in the US but not as popular as the beatles. However in many parts of the world they have sold as equals. Gigantic record sales were reported in South America, Australia, England and across Europe etc. I would not be supprised if the number were closer to half a billion records solds as the wikipedia article cites as the high estimation... I migth as well add that all the proffesional analyzers I've ever heard claimed the same: Elvis Presley, The Beatles and ABBA are the top three most selling artists/groups of all time.

Whatever is to be written int the next two lines is as far from reality as it can be. Abba sold nowhere near Elvis and The Beatles. They did not "sell as equals" to them excpet in their homeland and a few other places in Europe. In 90% of the world (including the UK) Abba are far behind them.

Sure, however they are not far behind others. ABBA most likely have sold more than any other artists SAVE Elvis and the Beatles. ABBA WERE much bigger - by far - outside the USA than IN the USA, so you cannot/must not, judge ABBA by their USA Sales. The Guiness Book of records claimed in 1984 that ABBA were the biggest selling artists ever! The Beatles were second with 170-175 million records and ABBA first with 182 million records. Suddenly EMI said in 1985 that they found some papers (which no one ever saw) that 600 million records should be added to those figures... Just nonsense...

Abba is the third biggest seller in the music history after The Beatles and Elvis Presley according to the Billboard Magazine. Check in the Guiness Book, Abba is mentionned to be the bigger selling pop group ever since The Beatles. Always according Billboard Magazine (1999), the top ten of the biggest music seller are The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Abba, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, Céline Dion, Pink Floyd, The Bee Gees, Julio Iglesias and Madonna.

Abba weren't as big as you all make out. Outside Europe (bar Austrila and NZ) they had virtually no support. They did not sell anywhere near elvis and the beatles. Nor did they outsell Elton John or Michael Jackson.--some ignorant creep South America, Asia and Africa is outside of Europe. ABBA sold tens of millions of records in Southamerica alone.

so did elvis, so did the beatles, so did elton john, so did michael jackson, so did countless others who also sold a lot more in the usa and the rest of the world. result : they sold more than abba globally.

Anastacia

What about Anastacia... she's sold enough to make the list for sure... and plus there are many world artists who should be here too and what about AcDc they are an absolutely awesome band with atleast 70 million copies world wide. You see the beatles and elvis have been around for over 40 years and in that time they have been able to sell there stuff on tapes, records and CD's so its no wonder there above 500 million. In the record books the beatles have sold over a billion tapes,dvd's.records and cd's altogether!

The Beatles

Where in the world are they? Somebody has completely altered the list. It is inaccurate and should be deleted.

Björk

The figure of 80 million quoted for Björk seems far too high. As her biggest seller Debut only reached #61 on the Billboard top 200 and has only just been certified platinum. Subsequent albums have fared less well so the cumulative US totals would be around 4 or 5 million at most. This Billboard article from 2001 indicated total worldwide album of 10 million. Even including singles and sales since then, difficult to see how it could be much more than 15 million.

Mariah Carey

The selling are a bit to higher... It's always the same with this singer, fan sites alwages increase to much her selling !!! According to your basis, she sold 165 millions albums and not 180 !!!! Plus the single, it's about 215/220 millions in the world and not more ! She is behind Dion ! Sorry, currently she is FIRST and has sold the most records!

Leonard Cohen

Only in Wikipedia could Leonard Cohen be claimed to have 210 million record sales. An influential songwriter, yes. Easy to listen to, no. A big seller of records, no no. I'd be surprised if his lifetime sales are 2 million, much less 210 million. Wasted Time R 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

You think he didn't sell even 20 million ? Vorash 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

I Highly doubt it! 195.93.21.40 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cher

There is Sonny & Cher, but what about Cher's solo career ??? Isn't She a best-selling music artist ???

Deep Purple

I have seen Deep Purples sales at up 150 million.

Congratulations !!

Americans think that the only record sales for Deep Purple was from Smoke on the Water. Deep Purple was Huge everywhere in the world before and after Smoke on the Water. I can easily see them selling over 100 million and yet I do not see them on the list...

Destiny's Child

I have personally read MANY articles stating that Destiny's Child HAS beat TLC's record, and I have heard on the MTV VMA's, that Destiny's CHild is the MOST SELLING female group of all time. I, personally, didn't believe that Christina Aguilera beat Destiny's Child, so I looked on their solo artist sites.

Destiny's Child(as a group)'s record sales total at about 30 million Beyonce's solo record sales total about 9 million Kelly's solo record sales total about 2 million Michelle's solo record sales total about .5 million All together that is 41.5 million

Christina Aguilera's record sales total at about 15 million and says she has a NET WORTH of 40 million.

If Christina Aguilera has sold 15 million records and her net worth is $40 million, then Destiny's Child's record sales of 41.5 million should boost their net worth.

--You can't add solo sales into the group total.

--Destiny's child the best selling female group ever? Sorry, but I highly doubt that!

Christina first album - 16 millions

Stripped album - 12 millions

Xmas album + Spanish album - 6 millions

Singles - 6 millions

Total sales - 40 millions.

And the most selling female grou of all time is the Spice Girls.

--I doubt The Spice Girls sold more than every girl act ever, they only had two big albums.

--Okay, well... is Christina Aguilera a GROUP??? And, Destiny's Child was just awarded the WORLD MUSIC AWARD for being the most selling and most accomplished female group of all time.

--Plus, net worth is different than sales... you WOULD calculate each member's net worth to get the group's net worth... I mean... right now Beyonce is probably worth more than Christina Aguilera... between her solo work, her Austin Powers work, her Pink Panther movie, being in Dreamgirls later in '06, her clothing line, her fragrances... and then adding Michelle and Kelly AND the accomplishments of DC together on TOP of that... wow...

Bing Crosby

Forgotten by the Americans? the first supermillionseller! the first star relying on singing through a microphone. more albums than most of the list! more No. 1 hits than Elvis. 65-year-career ! look at [2] . Put him on the list to where he belongs!

Celine Dion

She is maybe Canada's shame and all, but she sold a lot of albums and I don't see her on the list...

She was there, now she's there again. You just have to look at the right time, that's the key to this list! Wasted Time R 01:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Eagles

I think the list is a load of #$%&ing bull if your talking about albums only. There is no way that AcDc has sold 180 Million copies and the eagles only a 100 million. The eagles are far more popular then AcDc when it comes to album sales but i like AcDc. I meen 180 million. I have gone onto there website I have gone onto google and I now know that Acdc has sold about 70 -80 million copies world wide. Where this guy got his info i do not know. Acdc was around for about 25 years so thats equivalent to about 7 million albums a year. Cough cough.... PS: Back in Black rocks.

AC/DC has sold 66.5 million albums in the US alone, which is certified by the riaa. Combine that with album sales from Europe and their home country of Australia, two places where they were popular there before they were in America, and you have a 180 million album total. On the other hand the Eagles are a purely American band who never found more than moderate success in most countries, but their worldwide album sales are at least 120 million, their US total is 89 million.

Eminem

Eminem is clearly a music legend, his status is more powerful than any other in the music business right now, his the best selling artist of the decade, and his a very nice human being.

Sales in excess of : 75,000,000+ , with Relapse 1 & 2, it should easily top 85+ million

Genesis

Their worldwide sales is listed at 160,000,000. Why are they not just ahead of U2 on the list? Correct info 8 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

Does anyone really think Genesis has outsold U2? Come on now, people.

I have no idea where that figure of 160,000,000 came from...What I'm saying is that either that figure should come down or they should be ranked higher on the list. Doesn't matter to me. I just want the list to be more accurate. If there is still no feedback from any of you about it by tomorrow, I will go ahead and make the change to the list then. Correct info 9 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Done Vorash 9 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias

Julio Iglesias is from Spain, not from the Basque Country see the page in wikipedia of this artist or any other page in internet.

All of this is a shit, this is a fan war there are not facts nor arguments. Delete this list til new advise.

I agree, the list should perhaps be changed to a voting poll.That way no one can complain. Something would need to be done to ensure nobody could vote more then once. A small fee maybe? I'd pay. anyone who cares can pay. Though I guess that isn't what Wikipedia is for.

Michael Jackson

Where da hak is Michael Jackson??

Hellow where is Micheal Jackson???? He sold over 300 million albums and he didn't make it to the ilst??

He's been overtaken in sales by C.W. McCall. Sorry.

Elton John

I think they are alot higher than 230.000.000 million. If anyone has any numbers or sites saying anything about this please post it

Elton sales aren't. In 1990 he claimed 100 million sales (singles and albums) worldwide.

I beleive that his sales are over 230m too.

James Last

Why did somebody remove James Last from the list? Last has sold more than 100 million albums. For the past few days, I have been adding James Last to the list on an almost daily basis. Then a few hours passes, and some vandal edits him out. What is going on here? --83.109.142.134 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Why is led zeppelin so low on the list? The link that it has with it says that they have sold more then 200,000,000 albums but it also says that they are the biggest selling rock group in history. This means whoever changed the page was taking into account only half of that article, which is obviously out of date. Also, the wikipedia article for led zeppelin says they have sold more than 300,000,000 million albums. I'm just saying.

Led Zepplein's sales seem fantasy. You wouldn'ty see many list of best selling albums showing them all in the top 20 ever (which they would have to be if they really sold that many).

Madonna

Where is madonna? where is she?, that's really sick someone just delete her name she was in the top4 and now she's gone

This topic should be deleted!

Plus, the selling of "American Life" are not uploaded !!! "Americna life" is higher than 6 million iin the world !!!

- Madonna's record company claimed she sold 200 mill, not 250 -- an even that was shipments and grossly exagerated. Mariah Carey has sold more.

Metallica

Metallica 10 ~200,000,000 ? Really doubt that.

me too. 70 million more like.

Yes, this is why this article is total garbage.

Metallica has sold nearly 60 million in the US, add another over 60 million from Europe where the band is just as popular there as they are in America, then factor in other countries where they are popular which includes Australia and Japan, which are major CD purchasing nations, add them up and the total sales are around 200 million.

nonsence. Meteliica aren't as popualr as a lot of other acts and they didn't sell 200 million. Bon Jovi are far more popular world-wide and they didn't even sell 100 million as a group.

Really, then why is it that wherever Metallica goes they sell out to huge crowds, and when their last album came out it debuted at number 1 in nearly 50 countries.

This is true. Bon Jovi was huge for a few years, but metallica has released #1 album after #1 album. They sell out huge arenas in every country they go to. If Bon Jovi were to play a show in a huge arena in Iceland, the venue wouldn't even be half-full. 200 Million seems like an appropriate guess, given their world-wide popularity.

Not at all. So what if Metallica paly huge venuses, that dosen't show 200 million sales. Peter Frampton played the biggest venues in America, but he's noone near one of the biggest sellers in the USA. Concert figures don't show record sales, they could have a core of fans who go to their concerts and buy records, but very few who don't go to the concerts don't buy the records. Bon Jovi have been far more popular than Metallica and today, are a much bigger act - there carrer at the top spans more time than Metallicas as does U2 (these 2 acts also play the biggest venues - over a longer time than Metallica). Metallica sold nowhere near them, and nowhere near 200 million.

Metallica's has been around just as long as Bon Jovi. Bon Jovi's last album sold only 1 million copies in the US, while Metallicas last album St. Anger has sold over 3 million in the US, and it dubuted at number 1 in nearly 50 countries and remained in the top 10 for several weeks. Even with those figures St. Anger is still Metallica's worst selling album to date, so compare that to the rest of their albums and 200 million is a very reasonable estimate.

No it's not, it's complete nonsence.

As of January 2004, Metallica has sold "nearly 90 million albums worldwide." The source for this is the documentary Some Kind of Monster (film). Since the term "albums" is used, I'm not sure if this figure includes singles. Also, this figure is now 2 years old, so I think it's safe to estimate Metallica's sales between 90-100 million worldwide.

That movie said that Metallica has sold over 90 million albums worldwide, and that was in 2002 and part of 2003. It was just a modest conservative estimate.

Metallica r brilliant they r my favourite band but they did not sell 2,000,000 records.They r not that popular.Ithink its something like 1,500,000

Modern Talking

Where Is MODERN TALKING with official (source BMG) 120 mln. sales

Look at this article: Modern Talking.--80.134.240.104 17:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC) On the list there should be people like AcDc, the eagles, Rolling stones, the beatles, michael jackson, elvis, LED ZEPPLIN!!!, David bowie, fleetwood mac. All I see is arguments between people. I heard in the record books that the beatles have sold around 163 million copies and that they have beaten elvis, but dvd's make a huge difference. Obviously the owners of this page dont know many bands!!!!

ARTICLES in wikipedia can't prove sales figures!

Modern Talking had sold 120.000.000. Not 80.000.000.--195.14.253.154 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WHY should this figure be true? Modern Talking's talker D. Bohlen seems to be a great pretender. 80.000.000 seems already quite high for such an average bestseller.

That did not say Bohlen. There is the official data of BMG.--80.134.210.188 13:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Anne Murray

Canadian singer Anne Murray not added!

Anne murray from Canada has sold over 54 milion copies worldwide and isnt even added here? can someone add her?

Dolly Parton

Dolly Parton is not listed by RIAA as having sold any more than 10.5 million albums [3]. Look at the list and you will note that she is not listed among the 200 highest selling artists in the US. Furthermore, I am not aware of any evidence to support that argument that sheis hugely popular in Latin America, Japan or Europe, for instance. I appreciate the fact that references have been added. For that reason, I am not going to touch the number or the ranking. I'm just making the point that this ranking seems high based on the RIAA list. Dolly Parton's official website is also not an acceptable reference, since there are no references to external sources. She did put out a lot of albums and singles though, so maybe the sources really are correct. I don't really know offhand.

ORIGINAL POSTING: The list says Dolly Parton has sold over 100 million albums, yet the RIAA shows she only has 22 gold or platinum records in the USA. Anne Murray has 25 gold, platinum and even multi-platinum US albums and is only listed at 40 million . How do you explain that ??? Furthermore , Anne Murray is listed in the RIAA bestsellers list but Dolly Parton did not even make the list. Where did Dolly sell her records-Romania ??? Also there is no WAY in hell that The Tragically Hip sold 20 million albums. They don't even have a US following. 2 million is a more likely realistic figure.

Don't forget though that Dolly has released many complation albums since the '70's to the present day, most of which have not been kept track of by the RIAA. The figure (like so many on here it seems) probably also includes compalation albums with 1 or more of her songs on. If this is the case, then it's a believable figure.

She's not too stacked. She looks great.

Pink Floyd

Pink Floyd classic albums kept selling well even though they did not returned to Billboard charts. In fact, Billboard changed its chart methodology in 1990. After that, an album that is more than 2 years old and falls out of the Billboard 200, is permanently removed from the charts and is featured on the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart. Billboard 200, therefore, represents the market of new albums and doesn't count the steady sellers like it did in the past. That is why, after 741 weeks on Billboard 200, Dark Side of the Moon never returned and will never be able to return: it is just not qualified to be there anymore, although its sales remain high. In fact, the album is frequently one of the top sports on Billboard's Top Pop Catalog Albums chart.

Yes, but it still dosen't justify all these extra millions of sales in such a short space of time. Albums at the top of the pop catalog chart sell far less than the new albums that top the billboard 200! Also, this rule dosen't apply to other countries and you don't see them topping those charts!

It doesn't make sense that Pink Floyd has sold all over the world only about 105 million copies if only in the United States they've sold about 73 million, and the ratio between US & worldwide sales is between 2-3.

Actually it does make sense because Pink Floyd were more popular in America than the rest of the world. Unlike Michael Jackson and The Beatles, who were more popular in Europe than America.

Pink Floyd sold more than 105 million albums worldwide. As of April 1994, they had sold 140 million records, accordingo to a press release on the occasion the band was releasing The Division Bell. That album was a #1 hit in UK and US, and it remained #1 on Billboard charts for 4 weeks (meaning: good sales).

So? "Good sales" is not a number and is also open to opnion, some may think 1 million = good sales, others may say higher.

After that, the live album PULSE was another #1 hit. And Pink Floyd classic albums remained selling millions.

they all sold millions? then tell me where they all got in the charts, after all, they were selling so many surley they all broke the top 10. They didn't, so those sales are not justified.

In September 1999, an EMI press release informed that Pink Floyd had sold over 175 million albums worldwide. The accuracy of this number may be put into question

Indeed It may

because Pink Floyd catalogue doesn't belong to a single recording company. But, admitting this number is right

who said it's right?, it's just been put into question

the release of Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980-1981 (2000) and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (2001) may have pushed this number to beyond 200 million.

then again, probably not

Anyway, Dark Side of the Moon (1973) sold over 35 million (as of 2003) and The Wall (1979) sold over 20 million (as of 1999).

I find it funny how these albums have sold as well year on year as top chart albums, but not been in the charts as well, something funny there in these claims.

These numbers were officially divulged when Dark Side completed 30 years and The Wall turned 20 years old. In 2005, these two albums have probably reached at least 60-65 million copies sold and may have even reached the 70 million mark (around 40 million for Dark Side and over 25 million for The Wall; these numbers are quite probable: Dark Side is certified 15x platinum in US, but its sales have reached 19 million according to Nielsen Soundscan, and The Wall is certified 23x platinum for sales of 11.5 million double albums). Wish You Were Here (1975) sold 6 million in US alone, so it must have sold at least 12 million worldwide, and 15 million is definitely not out of question.

yes, anything is out of the question, unless THROUGH research can be done, something you haven't done, you've just looked at other websites

This album was a #1 in UK and, unlike The Wall, it is far more popular in Europe than in US.

But far less popular overall that the wall

Animals (1977) sold around 8-10 million (4 million in US). The Final Cut (1982) sold 5 million at least, it had sold over 3 million during the 80s. The five albums combined sold at least 85 million and somewhat optimistic estimates put it at 100 million. We also have Works and A Collection of Great Dance Songs. Works probably sold around 500,000 copies, but A Collection... sold 2 million in US, so 4 million worldwide is a possibility.

probable and possibilty are not credible sources, just your guess work

We are at 90-105 million with these albums. Early Pink Floyd albums did not sold so well. Estimates put Meddle at around 5 million (2 million in US). Atom Heart Mother and Umagumma sold around 5 million combined, and the other albums sold less. Conservative estimates put total sales of early albums at around 20 million. These estimates are conservative because Pink Floyd was far more popular in Europe than in US those years. They could be pushed to 25 million and this would seem more realistic. Atom Heart Mother hit #1 in UK, while the band only eventually cracked into the US Top 40 before The Dark Side of the Moon. Our calculations are pushed to 110-130 million because of these early albums estimates. The two following albums to Roger Waters departure of the band (A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Delicate Sound of Thunder) had sold 11 million copies as of 1994, according to The Division Bell press release. It is not hard to believe these numbers are at least 15 million in 2005 and could be beyond that. The Division Bell spent 4 weeks at the #1 spot and kept selling during the huge tour Pink Floyd performed in 1994. Sales of this album are over 3 million in the US, and worldwide numbers may be around 8-10 million. The live album PULSE sold more than 1 million copies in both US and Europe, so 4 million is a good possibility. If the two Pink Floyd previous albums sold 15 million, the two Pink Floyd later albums could have sold over that, because there were more markets available to music industry in the 90s (such as Russia). Pink Floyd numbers can range from 137 to over 160 million so far, according to these estimates. The Wall Live was not a real best-seller, but it sold easily 1 million copies worldwide. Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd had sold almost 6 million copies as reported in the end of 2001. As the album was released in November 2001, this number is related to sales of less than two months. The album can be at 10 million right now. All in all, Pink Floyd sold at least 145 million albums worldwide in a conservative estimate, and, being more realistic, it can have topped the 170 million. 180 or 200 million is not out of question at all.

You keep using the word "probable" and such like. However, a look at world wide charts shows these numbers are far to high for Pink Floyd. 4 weeks at number 1 in the usa is not enough to justify a world-wide 10 million seller!

Queen

Queen Post #1:

Because Queen was anomalously less popular in the US than in the world as a whole, US figures will tend to under-estimate the number of albums sold by this hugely popular international band. As an example of the US anomaly, although the song "A Kind of Magic" reached the number one position in 35 different countries, it was not even in the US top 40! In fact, Queen is so popular in England that they have actually spent more time on the charts than even The Beatles([4])! Most recently, an Ericsson poll of 600,000 people in 66 different countries found "We Are the Champions" to be the world's most popular song[5]Interestingly, this finding contradicts the findings of a another huge world-wide poll conducted by Guinness World which showed "Bohemian Rhapsody" to be the world's favorite song [6]!!! My point in sharing all of this is that, whether or not Americans are aware of it (after all, "Bohemian Rhapsody" only reached the #9 spot in the US), Queen is actually one of the most popular bands in the world. To this day, Queen still holds the record for the highest concert attendance ever for a single band (Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1981) and there was not a single country in which Queen could not sell out entire stadiums.

Note: Several of the Queen references provided by Wikipedia users have been repeatedly vandalised!!

My suggestion is that, if people do not agree with the references cited, then, rather than simply erasing them and moving the band down 100 spots, they provide alternative sources which contradict those that are cited. If Queen's relative position is to then be drastically altered based upon any sort of contradicting information, then not only should the alternative source be referenced, but explanations should be provided as to why this latter source is more appropriate than those sources currently listed.

____________________________________________

Queen Post #2:

Keep in mind that Queen although lacked sales in the US because of Freddie's change of image etc... they continued to increase their sales all over the world... including Japan and South America were they were very famous. In Europe, Queen had a string of number 1 albums and they were hugely successful there. A kind of magic alone reached No.1 in 30 countries. This year (2005),Queen have officialy passed the beatles in UK in the album charts making them even bigger than the beatles (in album sales in Uk). One can check this out in this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4648611.stm.

I think that this is a great achievement.

____________________________________________________________________

This doesn't mean they've sold more albums in the UK than the Beatles, just that they've spent more cumulative weeks on the albums chart. The two may or may not correlate. Wasted Time R 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the two may or may not correlate but seeing that the Beatles are acclaimed to be the best band in the world, and they have been beaten (in the album charts) in their home-country by another Rock band; its something quite astonishing.

In many countries around the world Queen are ranked the second best band after the Beatles (the second most loved/favourite band after the beatles). One can check out this in the variuos polls that takes place around the world (particularly in Europe).

Not withstanding the fact that Bohemian Rhapsody has been voted the best song of the millenium in UK and repetitively ranking similar placings in many other countries around the world.

It should also be pointed out that we are not trying to place Queen above The Beatles in terms of record sales. We merely have them listed at the #15 position. The point is that there is little doubt that they belong in the top #20 in the world and not at the #100 position, where they were prior to the addition of various references and posts. It is also possible that theyare still listed too low on the current list. By no means are we exaggerating by putting Queen among the top 20 best selling artists of all time. ____________________________________________________________________

The figures stated in wikipedia for the best selling artists mark Queen to have sold 190 million albums. I think that it is much more than that seeing that Queen conquered for many years different regions, amongst others Japan and even US in the 70's and then again in the early 90's. They were always successful elsewhere.

This can be clearly tested when comparing the total sales of Hollywood records for Queen as it is officially declared by the RIAA: "Hollywood Records dusted off the Queen catalog and upgraded or newly certified seven titles to bring the U.K. quartet's album sales total 32 million. Leading the way were "News Of The World" and "The Game" which were certified four times Platinum. Rounding out the list were "A Night At The Opera" (three million) and "Classic Queen" (three million), "Live Killers" (two million), "A Day At The Races" (Platinum) and "A Kind of Magic" (Gold)". [7]

This clearly shown that although 32 million may seem a quite moderate amount; this band as I have pionted out before in this article has achieved to sell a mere 180 million records/album elsewhere around the world... Here is the statement. Queen did not sell many millions in the US (around 24 million from just Hollywood records) and perhaps more millions in the US from other major record companies that Queen worked with in the US. It clearly shows that Queen did conquer the remained territories cause the figures of sales in other countries reaches big amounts.

Then again who cares about the US market? Looking back to what had happened in the 80's (soon after the release of Hot Space, and the single; Body Language), Queen made a suicide-affair with the US market.. because the US market was very worried on having a gay singer and a front man of a rock band; that just didn't fit in the norms of the US market. Cause for the US market, way back in the 1980's, a frontman of a rock band has to have long hair, no moustache (because of gay connotations), and Freddie Mercury just didn't care about all this rubbish. He just wanted to be as he wished. Being himself. Was there something wrong in this? The US market or better different authorities responsible for the US market thought differently; cause they just didn't care about the 'music', 'which was excellent and grandiose to all standards'.

Keep in mind the US market and how big it is, just imagine if this market was somewhat more concerned about the music talent rather than focusing on these homophobic connotations, just imagine how many more millions Queen would have sold in the US. Queen were just unlucky. Underestimated by a stupid market because of Freddie's new image. Conservative approach... just imagine; The Works, A Kind of Magic, The Miracle, Innuendo... their increased sales!!

When I look to other bands that are getting sales in the US, I will continue to conclude that to conquer this market you don't have to be a virtuoso, but a simple band who obey the rules and the standards of US. Led Zeppelin, Beatles and Pink Floyd were very strong in the US. These are exceptions... all 3 have somewhat continued on making music the way they used to make...they were great bands, even of great influence to Queen themselves, especially Led Zeppelin. Queen experimented in many genres and this has somewhat blurred their image with the US market...

For me Queen has ultimately succeeded on making things they wanted to be.. being different. Being Great. Being unique. Creating a genre for themselves. Responsible for some immortal songs and albums. Just imagine the hundreds of thousands of people in their concerts knowing each single word of every song of Queen!! By the way, talking about concert attendances... Queen leads the way in the largest paying concert ever: In 1985 in Rock In Rio, the estimated audience of the Queen shows was of 325,000 for each show. Up to 2003, this still is the world record for biggest paying audience (since replaced by 2003's Molson Canadian Rocks for Toronto, which drew an audience of 490,000 paying guests). Wishful thinking ... Well these are the real facts my friends. I was just being realistic 'cause Queen have for sure sold more than 200 million.

____________________________________________

Responses to the above Queen posts:

They never sold out a stadium in the USA. Just hockey arenas.

Not high in the charts tho - weeks and weeks spent at #60 or there abouts dosen't make you one of the biggest sellers ever. The Beatles trash Queen when chart postions are looked at

<<< On a personal perspective it is very hard to tell what are the actual sales of Queen. Queen were a huge success, selling millions of albums. In the 70's alone they sold up to 40 million, up to mid 80's they sold 80 millions... sales were always there through out the years. Quite simply they easily sold more than 200 million albums till now.

No it's not. A lot of there markets are smaller than that of abba or elton john or whoever. 130 million maybe. 200 million is a bit wishfull thinking. Combined their Greatest Hit's albums have sold 25 million copies, so there is no way they would have topped another 100 million besides.

These polls only include a small section of the public, nor do they account as record sales.

Why all the articles related to Queen in this discussion were deleted???

I just cannot understand. As if it is not worth discussing Queen Sales whatsoever??

I have written lots of staff related to Queen in this space last week, but it is no longer here.

'Please I need an answer. ==''''

It was deleted because Queen fans kept deleting te arguments against Queen. So if they want to remove part of the debate, then the whole debate has now been removed.

Cliff Richard

Cliff Richard is said to have sold 250 million records per his official website http://www.cliffrichard.org/biog/index.cfm, and holds a huge number of UK charts records, yet he keeps getting dropped completely from the list. What gives? I guess the Michael Jackson fanatics that control this page now don't approve of him. Wasted Time R 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Roxette

Added Roxette becouse they have sold enugh. According to the official website of the bad they've sold 45 million albums and 25 million singles. They ougth to know, rigth? So I put them down on 70m.

Hello??? Who do people keep deleting what I add? I've added Roxette two times now and someone keeps deleting them! Withoute even writing an arugment here on the talk-page. WHAT'S THE F*****G POINT WITH HAVEING A WIKIPEDIA IF ONE CAN'T ADD INFORMATION?

More like misinformation, amirite? --Jacj 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scorpions

Scorpions???

No. They only sold 20 million records world-wide.

Frank Sinatra

Quotation (by an expert): "I'm no statistician and his total sales are nowhere near the top of my Sinatra interests. However, I would guess that if you count his 78's, 45's, LP's, EP's, casssettes, 8 tracks and CD's, the total has to be many times 50 million.

He made his first record in 1939 and recorded until 1993. He has made hundreds of "singles." At least two of them, "All Or Nothing at All" and "Something Stupid," each sold over one million. Many more in the 40's, 50's and 60's were best sellers. He made more than 40 singles alone between '53 and '60 for Capitol. Add to that all lthe singles he made with RCA, Columbia and Reprise and sales have to exceed 50 million in just singles.

A bunch of his albums such as "Come Dance with Me" and "Only the Lonely" have sold at least a million each, maybe several million over the decades in their various formats. And there are 100+ more albums sold in the 45, LP, EP, 8 track, casssette and CD formats (remember 8 tracks?).

FS was primarily an album seller, but with just singles alone, there have to be more than 50 million.

Take all of the above and include collections, box sets of 2, 3, 4, 10, 20 or more LP's, CD's, etc,, and I would guess you have more than 500 million. "

I think it sounds plausible! So Frank Sinatra is one of the artists who sold MORE than 250.000.000 Records!

I agree it sounds plausible. But we need a more substantial claim than 'an expert' on a forums page. In the end, the RIAA list none of his albums as selling over 50 million. I agree that Frank was massive but it was simpy an era in which fewer sales occured. Robdurbar 09:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A good investigated german Site about Legends writes about more than 250 Million sold records.

Smashing Pumpkins

22 million per this source [8] I'll let you guys verify and see if it should be included. Edwardian 9 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Thalía

in the list you can see thalia's sales as high as 20 million, but the truth is that she has only sold 10 million worldwide.

once, I read that blink 182 had sold more than 15 million worldwide, but they are not on the list.

U2 has sold much more than many of theese artists and these page is abselutely wrong..bad-bad-bad elvis and the beatles has sold so very very much more htan M-J One thing you have to realise is that Blink 182 are very popular TODAY! but when you compare blink 182 with bands that have been going since the sixties and seventies it just doesn't compare. 15 million is nothing!

John Travolta

Does this one stand out to anyone else?

Tupac

How is Tupac Shakur not on this list?

--andrew 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

He is, under the name 2 Pac, #159 I think. If you think that's the wrong name for him to be listed under, change it. Wasted Time R 01:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

U2 & Jazzy B

Why is U2 listed twice? And I find it hard to believe "Jazzy B" sold 10 billion albums. I've never even heard of this guy.

Yes

How many albums have they sold around the world? Why aren't they on the list?

Firstly, may I ask who is 'Yes'? Why don't you research their reach (do they deserve to be on the list?) -AJ

'Yes' is a progressive rock band. I couldn't find on wikipedia how many copies have they sold so far around the world. I don't know if they deserve to be on the list, so that's why I started a new discussion about them.

"Yes" were successful in their day, but were by no means one of musics biggest acts

true.

Neil Young

The figure of 240 million for Neil Young seems highly unlikely, and the source that is quoted is the same outfit that gave the discredited 210 million Leonard Cohen figure – Canadian propaganda or something.

http://www.thrasherswheat.org/tnfy/neilyoungalbums.htm has some Neil Young figures – maybe after you add it all up you get to 24 million, but no way to 240 million. Wasted Time R 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

He's at it again! lol. 195.93.21.40 18:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The Leonard Cohen at 210 million figure was the funniest serious (not vandalism) entry this article has ever had. I now regret having pointed out the ludicrousness of it, I wish it had stayed in. Wasted Time R 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

National

French sellers

There are errors (Marianne James never sold 100 millions!! maybe 1 million, maximum... She's fun, but not a hard-seller. I think it's a joke). Here are some french artists : Tino Rossi 300 millions, Mireille Mathieu 100 millions (and not 150...), Johnny Hallyday 100 millions, Charles Aznavour 100 millions, Michel Sardou 90 millions, Dalida 85 millions (some sources says 120, but its overweight...), Jean-Michel Jarre 80 millions, Sheila 70 millions, Richard Clayderman 60 millions, Claude françois 60 millions, Henri Salvador 60 millions,Georges Brassens 60 millions, François Valery 40 millions, Chantal Goya : 32 millions, Serge Lama 30 millions, Sylvie Vartan : 30 millions, Francis Cabrel : 25 millions, Joe Dassin : 20 millions,Michele Torr : 20 millions,Renaud : 12 millions There are a lot more French artists beetween 10 and 80 millions (Pierre Perret, , Téléphone, , Edith Piaf, Barabara, Patrick Bruel, JJ Goldman, Mylene Farmer, Indochine, Richard Antony, Hugues Aufray, Pierre Bachelet, Daniel Balavoine, Guy Béart, Gilbert Bécaud, C Jérome, Karen Cheryl, Julien Clerc, Jacques Dutronc, Dorothée, Henri Des, Jean Ferrat, France Gall, Serge Gainsbourg, Gipsy Kings, Richard Gotainer, Juliette Gréco, Françoise Hardy, Jean-Luc Lahaye, Gérard Lenorma, Michel Fugain, Michel Delpech, Eddy Mitchell, Florent Pagny, Pascal Obispo, Ringo, Dick Rivers, Tino Rossi, Véronique Sanson, Michel Joansz, HF Thiéfaine, Laurent Voulzy, Charles Trénet, Hervé Vilard, Michel Polnareff, for exemple). Good luck for that list, because it's very hard to find the good figures... Clio64B 00:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I add some of those artists on the article. I will try to find stuff about the others.

Clio64B 04:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Mylène Farmer is about 20 millions selling records in the world !! Maybe 1 or 2 millions more even.

Japanese sellers

Why names of Japanese an other artists have been deleted? Racism and Mafia

How come the names of Japanese artists have been deleted?? There are 23 Japanese artists who sold over 20 million in Japan. But most of them have been deleted from the list. Why? Is this a racial discrimination?? There is a evidence that they sold over 20 million. But in this list, there are only 5 artist. This is not true at all.

from Diranotach (me): An Utada Hikaru should be on the list! Her first album has sold over 10 millions, and her total must be over 20 millions! She's even in Guines World Records for best selling Japanese Albume ever! She should be on the list!!!!! JAPAN RULZ!!!!

Why is the most popular way to vandalize the list to overwrite Michael Jackson's Name? Racism, of course. Where ist the name of Bob Marley on the list? Racism, pure racism. Why does Bing Crosby disappear regularly from the list? Rumours say that Frank Sinatra had relations to the mafia: No other artist of the american "Crooners" shall appear on the list, especially when he has much higher worldwide sales than "Frankieboy".

REPLY TO ABOVE : You need to get in touch with the real world, dude

Vicky Leandros

HELLO ALL! I READ ALL THE COMMENTS AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT NO MATTER HOW RIGHT OR WRONG PEOPLE ARE YOU CANNOT MAKE SUCH A LIST WITHOUT OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OR FROM PERSONAL FAVORITES!!! You cannot see comments like ie. "the XXX artist sucks" so he/she cannot have sold more albums than someone else. This was supposed to be a list for the most selling artists and not the ones we like most. Also some others I see each week changes that have nothing to do with reality

Text on Vicky Leandros moved from archive to Talk:List of best-selling music artists as it was ongoing at time of archiving

New Format

Rather than lsiting the artists in the current format, why do we not reform it to group artists into sections depending on approximate number of sales. We could have the top group of 'Artists who have sold over 250 000 000 records; artists who have sold over 100 000 000 records; artists who have sold over 50 000 000 records. Within these groups we could list them in alpahabetical order.

This might stop some of the deabtes over the exact order, which is petty and undoable given the lack of suitbale soruces. This page (my sandbox) shows how the first group would look, based on current figures. The other groups who be done in the same manner, though I don't have time to draw up the tables at the moment.Robdurbar 16:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm, well if I get not feedback about this I will go ahead and make the changes anyway Robdurbar 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you're probably right but the actual list is fine because it shows the exact rank for each artist and that's the purpose of the "List of best selling music artists of all time". But your idea wasn't bad of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readerweb (talk • contribs)

Yes, but this list is a complete mess, and the figures are wrong. It is impossible to rank these artists so exactly; new editors will just come in and shuffle people about, making up false and unrefernced figures.

By introducing this new format, the article will still be a list of the best selling music artists, but a more accurate and realistic one. Robdurbar 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the only problem here is the controverial sales figures for each artist which are sometime hard to confirm but the list form is okay for me. I think "the list of best..." is something new, so it requires a while for gathering real information from every artist and then to get a good approximative sales figure. Besides, it is harder to get worldwilde sales than US, UK and other local sales. Anyway since november 2005, I could notice that the sales information on this list are much better and improved thanks to good sources and logical countings (especially fair countings) but the WHOLE list is still far away from the truth. Except vandalism acts I think this wikipedia list will get better and better in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readerweb (talk • contribs)

Well I disagree. In producing a new format, I'm also going through the sources for each entry. Many of them are sourced by unverified claims in other Wikipedia articles, through websites that copy their content from Wikipedia or through sites that do not mention the sales figures.

Even where there are sources, a quick google search finds that these are often fansites, or sites making vague claims - e.g. 'over 100 million record sales'. The page as it is - due to its format as much as anything else - contains incorrect and misleading information. A version similar to the proposed one would make it more accurate Robdurbar 10:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The New Format ( Continued)

The old is better because you can get good estimate. Although there has been vandalism going in this site, the list has remained rather stable. The new list, although a good idea, will only cause more debate especially since in the intro Elvis and The Beatles where glorified as the likely countenders worlwide. I know of many sites and many people worldwide who would say its Led Zeppelin, or Michael Jackson, or Abba. The old list should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.104.16.26 (talk • contribs)

Well how about the new format without the Presley/Beatles comments? The fact is that the old version is far more inaccurate than the new one.

As you say yourself, arguments rage about who his the biggest seller, and few of the sources stand out as being more reliable than the others. For example, previously, the only source given for Elvis Presely claimed he had sold 1 billion records; the article here said he had 300 000? Where on earth did that figure come from? Like many on the page, it was random, or created by guess work. This new grouped format allows us to present agreed-upon fact, rather than speculation. Robdurbar 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New List Again

Ok well then its settled. The new list should stay, but might I add that another section should be added with artist who are believed to sell over 300 million. Even though people dispute whose the best-seller, we know that Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Abba, and The Beatles are well in the 300 million margin. This list is better then the last in some respect but the only thing is we know that 250 doesnt do any of this artist any just. I think the 300 million margin should stay and it should not go any higher to give more agreeable statistics. other then that this is the most fitting list and it will more than likely stop the vandalism.

-Kelvin

If you're really going to use this new format, the second class should be 200 million, not 250 million. The current 50-100-250-300 progression makes no sense, whereas 50-100-200-300 would. Wasted Time R 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So somebody changed the section title text from 250 million to 200 million, but didn't move any of the artists in the 200-250 million range into the section. This really is the worst article in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

List

Hey guys, well done for clearing this list up finally. Although there may be a few niggles with it remaining, it is a vast improvement, so credit to whoever sorted it out.

In response to whoever said that Led Zeppelin may have sold more than the Beatles, I have to say that I am a massive Zep fan, but don't believe they sold more than the Beatles.

An interesting stat:

Only 2 bands in history have achieved 5 diamond albums (albums selling more than 10 million).

They are Zep and the Beatles.

Anyway, well done again.

12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)ZepFan

Italian translation

As a user of Italian Wikipedia [9], since the article has been cleaned up and seems to have good sources, I wanted to copy the tables and, if necessary, translate some parts (for example, nationality). Are there any good chances to have the article unprotected in order to proceed? Thanks in advance (you may see our stub here [10])--Felyx 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

About The New List

The new list before was better when it stopped at 250 million as the highest format. Now fans of Elvis, MJ, Abba and The Beatles have added the 300 million just to put their fave acts at the top. I say put it back to 250 million, then 100 million, then 50 million and leave it at that. More accurate listings then. Also, deleted the mention of Michael Jackson in the heading, The mention of Elvis and The Beatles selling a billion was deleted, so why do MJ fans think they can put their man in the top? Ridiculous! Todd

In reply to last change, 300 million format is fair, I mean yes it seems perfectly clear that The Beatles, Michael jackson, Elvis Presley and Led Zepplin have sold at least 300 million records. This got nothing to do with fans wishes or fans celebration. In any case if Mr Smith or Mr Sam or Ms Betty (fake names) are the best selling artists you will always find some comentaries highlighting their fans conspiracy to put them on the top. If I'm not happy finding out that Beatles, Jackson, Presley are the best selling artists than my favorites Cliff Richard and Bob Marley then it's my business but it doesn't give the right to criticize the 3 I mentioned above. I hope everybody will get that.

Your list is unfair mate (the one who put 200 million format), by removing The Jacksons from the list your point of view is not objective. Actually I'm not a fan of Led Zepplin BUT they are together with the Beatles the world best selling band ever. If you expect to change the list format please put forward your objective reasons and then change. I hope some day one official organisation will finally state about the top 100 world best selling artists of all time as the World Music Award stated only about the world best selling artist of all time (i.e Michael Jackson) they should let us know about the second, third until the 100th and update that each year just like does RIAA for US sales.

I have moved it back to the original with 250 million sales as the top brakcet; I did feel that this worked best. I wouldn't be agianst a paragraph at the top explaining that the artists most commonly labeled as best sellers are elvis and the beatles, with claims existing for MJ, ABBA and Led Zepplin, noting that none of these are confirmed Robdurbar 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and PLEASE Sign Your Posts!!Robdurbar 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I forgot, the last 2 paragraph before you, were actually mine. This list (actual 250 million) is better!. You did a good job Robdurbar let's just keep improving but please keep in mind that the WHOLE list (all artists from A to Z) need to be updated and not only Beatles/Jackson/Presley, let's call them The BJP because they always bring too much debates and make the others artists anonymous, I'm sure that there are more mistakes on the middle/end of this list than on the top BUT yes this Wikipedia list is getting better. Readerweb 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - though in reality it takes a long time to go through every source, which is why I began by just doing the top two lists. Robdurbar 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - just delete the 50 million + list. The other two would be far easier to police. Proto t c 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What do others think of this one? I'm in two minds at the moment, but it's not the worst idea I've ever heard? Robdurbar 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I've just noticed, the External Links down below the list called "Explanation of the difficulties of deciding on the biggest selling artists" is not objective because this explains how Elvis Presley has sold 1 billion, it deals only with him. As a matter of fact, this link should be placed on the Elvis Presley source case (within the list and not outside the list as a conclusion). I like Elvis since kid in the guarden but still, it doesn't give me the right to make exception of him by placing him on the top without any official/objective statement. That is the reason why this link should replaced in its right place (i.e Elvis Presley source). Readerweb 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it Robdurbar 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

F**k off. The Beatles and Elvis far outsold Led Zeppelin. So did Jackson and Madonna. from Tony. – TonyLeigh 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Petula Clark

Was mentioned on the list before now isnt- Certified sales of over 70 million records - Britains best selling female artist and most successful solo artist of the 20th century

No she hasn't, isn't, and wasn't. Proto t c 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield is the UK's number 1 female seller, with some 50 million sales, Petula Clark is 2nd with about 40 million records sold.

Cher

WHERE THE FUCK IS CHER? She has sold over 100 millionen records all over the world +.~

Cher wikipedia page stated 100 million records sales as solo artist but without mentioning any link. Is there anybody to find out this information (100 million record sold) in any reliable website or pages? at least if CHER official website could state about this I think this will help to put her in the 100 million format. I've been searching and I found out that CHER sold 12,5 million ALBUMS only in the US (source RIAA), so she probably has sold more singles than album in America, and so worldwidly. I hope some people will get reliable sources on that. Readerweb 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unrefernced Artists

I have gone through all the sources on the page, making sure they are (relatively) reputable and agree with our claims. I have removed various artists where the sources say they have sold fewer records than this article claims, or where there is absolutely no hint that they might have sold so many records.

The following artists have been left in as, although I could not find any useable sources that show they have sold the records claimed, there appears to be some evidence (either unuseable or overly vague) that suggests that they might deserve to be here. If anyone can find sources for these acts, then they can stay in the list. Otherwise, they will have to go for the sake of consistency:

• Modern Talking
• Björk
• Eric Clapton
• Fairouz
• Guns N' Roses
• Paul McCartney
• Mötley Crüe
• Oasis
• Simon and Garfunkel

Robdurbar 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it seems obvious. Active artists figures are very hard to find as well. I just propose that we put a kind of mention like "waiting for sources" or something like this in the list next to their name or source place. I'm not going to name any artist in that list (above) but we know that some of them are believed to have sold more than 50 million at least even if it is hard to find good information. That is the beauty of fanship which could be a paradox : sometimes we say that fans are exagering their idol sales but at the same time they are especially involved in that search of information to proove (in some way) the rank, which is kinda good. That's why we need all fans here and all unpartial people puting things up in the right place. Thanks Rob Readerweb 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I have now removed the above from the list as they are all unsourced Robdurbar 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Has sold at least 50 million albums worldwide according to the promotional details of the Majikat DVD [11] and should therefore be included. However whether his total record sales fit in the 50-100 million category or 100-250 million category I haven't been able to figure out yet. Cedars 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Spice Girls

Probably belong in the 50 million plus category. I'm thinking it may be better to just delete this category and focus on those with 100 million plus sales. Cedars 04:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another idea...

Best-selling female singer dosn't even try to rank sales and perhaps this page shouldn't either. This would be a much better way to lay out the page noting ABBA, the Beatles, Elvis and 3 or 4 others who might be close. Honestlly, despite being a very similar topic this layout dosn't have the confussion that this page has --T-rex 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It IS that page that gave me the idea for the current format. I feel that the improvements meen its worth an effort to keep this as it is - if we can now keep the vandalism under control, this page could gradually evolve into something far more ambitious than the 'best selling female' page. Do you think that removing the 'years active' might reduce some of the clutter on the page? Robdurbar 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if you were to remove the decades where you have specific years, that would help it look better. But, It still comes across as a big long and poorly referenced list. Without any concrete numbers it's hard to see how usefull this list it. --T-rex 00:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the problem with specific nubmers was that it was a)creating arbitrary figures where some artists are cited as having sold anything between 300 million and 1 billion records (the example there is elvis) b) it was much harder to police as people could bump up acts quite reasonably by adding a fake 5 million sales or so and c) it created a lot of uncessary edit warring between fans of artists arguing over positions Robdurbar 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jazzy B -- 10,000,000,000 albums?

Has anyone taken a look at the front page? I highly doubt some person I've never heard of could have sold 10 billion records. -- Andrew Parodi 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I stand corrected. Apparently he's the biggest selling Bhangra musician of all time, which most certainly means he's the biggest selling artist in world history. Bhangra has always been a favorite of mine. -- Andrew Parodi 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)