150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

There are 12898 comments on the talk.livedaily.com story from Dec 6, 2008, titled 150 Best Selling Artists in the World! . In it, talk.livedaily.com reports that:

This is a list of the top 150 worldwide best-selling music artists of all time. The measure is the total number of singles and albums sold world-widep, this info comes from the IFIP at the end of 2007. Michael Jackson is #2 with 350 million sold.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at talk.livedaily.com.

DENNIS HAUSER

Peoria, IL

#12444 Sep 5, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
Oh by the way, Rick, Dennis, and Octopus : I have just purchase the complete Elvis Presley Masters.
30 Compact discs comprised with 711 master recordings. This incredible amount of recorded work comes with a 240 page book filled with historical discography and record sales data. Upon viewing Presley's global sales archives in different countries, you conclude with the obvious question?
How can any other artist come close within a semblance to the popularity of this musical phenomenon? Oh well, let me enjoy the music. Have a great day gentlemen.
Enjoy Vic! Sounds like a great set of Elvis CDs!! Anymore info on Elvis update as to new gold record status! I've heard some are coming soon!
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12447 Sep 5, 2013
Elvis' groundbreaking music was from 54 to 58.
The Grammys were not even formed until 58.
The Grammsy were formed and ruled by pre-rock era people.
The politics and atmosphere of the Grammys were far different than the last 35 years.
People with new hot styles today can sometimes sweep the Grammys-but not in Elvis time.
Rock was considered a fad and not taken seriously.
What would happen if the huge explosion of ELVIS had happened in an era where rock was accepted and applauded instead of scorned?
Dolbyscat

Chilliwack, Canada

#12449 Sep 5, 2013
Paul wrote:
Elvis' groundbreaking music was from 54 to 58.
The Grammys were not even formed until 58.
The Grammsy were formed and ruled by pre-rock era people.
The politics and atmosphere of the Grammys were far different than the last 35 years.
People with new hot styles today can sometimes sweep the Grammys-but not in Elvis time.
Rock was considered a fad and not taken seriously.
What would happen if the huge explosion of ELVIS had happened in an era where rock was accepted and applauded instead of scorned?
First grammy's 1959, Rock was regarded in much the same vein as Rap is by Elvis fans, and as such was not even considered for nomination. There are in fact many who believe the Grammy's originated to honor "real" music and R&R was not in that category. Check out the history and those who won, it's plain to see why Elvis wasn't honored.Of course the facts will never appease the likes of RICKY in Chicago who require a grammy for every one of Elvis' releases.
Dolbyscat

Chilliwack, Canada

#12450 Sep 5, 2013
Shall we talk about The Beatles Grammy wins....Now there is an enviable record, and no Elvis fan can deny it...They can make every excuse they like but it's there for all too see...Talk about rubbing salt in the wound huh!! Oh but I guess Elvis will deserve credit for their wins....Cos "without Elvis there would be no Beatles" (John Lennon).
Dolbyscat

Chilliwack, Canada

#12452 Sep 5, 2013
Oh!! don't forget the Oscar win....
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12455 Sep 6, 2013
Don't get me wrong,Dolbyscat,I don't think Elvis should've won for EVERY release,but he DEFINITELY should have at least a COUPLE of grammys for his Rock and Pop music,and the elitest asshole Grammy committee,or NARAS,had a GOLDEN opportunity to do just that a couple of years ago when `YOUNG MAN WITH THE BIG BEAT',which featured his groundbreaking 1956 Rock and Roll music,was nominated for best historical album,and who did they give the Grammy to,Paul Mccartneys mediocre `BAND ON THE RUN',an album that in my opinion should not have won,because the Elvis release had had a million times more HISTORICAL impact,it was music thet altered the course of Pop music and opened the door for the likes of a Paul Mccartney and many others,but Mccartney's record company plans to do a commemorative release of `PIPES OF PEACE',another sure Grammy winner,ha ha,peace out.
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12456 Sep 6, 2013
Well its true the first Grammys were awarded in 59 but they were for the music of 1958.
A case can well be made that Elvis' explosion was just bad timing in a different era.(but thats life)
The Beatles did benefit from a greater acceptance of rock music-as the Sinatra era "peers" began to loosen up.
The Beatles had a much less bombastic sound as compared to early rock.
The 50s rockers had virtually no respect from the established music world-the thoughts were fads come fads go.
By 62 Elvis was churning out soundtracks and it was not his best music.

By the time he was making his comeback even though rock was now totally accepted-his peers were now the next generation of rockers-their perception of Elvis was not rock but MOR.
John Kay of Steppenwolf(Magic Carpet Ride, Born to be Wild etc) said in a local radio interview that he liked Elvis 50s work but had not listened to his music since Elvis got out of the Army-so many of his "peers" had no clue as to the music Elvis was making in albums in the late 60s into the 70s-they were assuming by the perception they had of Elvis.
His gospel music could not be ignored and it was the forerunner of modern gospel...Amy Grants, Micheal W Smith...crossover music with a pop feel and more production.
I actually think if the political atmosphere of the 50s was replaced with the acceptance of today Elvis may have had many Grammy wins during that period from 54-60....if there had been a Grammys in that period.
Elvis had 10 #1s in a row, million selling singles EPs and albums, his controversy on TV was number one topic, his firt 4 films made millions and "Jailhouse Rock" is considered a rock movie classic.
Now lets be fair if some artist in 2013 has a list of accomplishments that long and has that much "BUZZ" they end up nominated and walking away with all kinds of rock music Grammys (even when the Grammys began to accept rock in the mid 60s-most of the catagories for rock we have today-were not even around.
It should also be noted that Elvis Presley was the second person ever-to win the Bing Crosby lifetime Achievement award (Bing was the 1st)and he was not yet 40 (Bing was in his 70s) this award is symbolic of groundbreaking success on a consistent level and contributions in a major way to music.
So I think a good case can be made that Elvis would have won quite a few more Grammys during the 50s for sure-if there had been a Grammys in the years Elvis was entertainments latest, hottest buzzword.
Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#12457 Sep 6, 2013
In all earnest Rick, I assume and this is only an assumption that the 1960's counterculture crowd have never forgiven Presley for his 1972 meeting with President Nixon. Elvis Presley's political leanings and ideology were moderate to conservative. He was not a left wing radical or Zealot.He was later to raise more eyebrows when he met then governor of Alabama George Wallace who advocated a segregationist agenda. Of course, Presley was good friends with former governor of Georgia and President Jimmy Carter(a democrat). But it was his historical meeting with Nixon at the height of the Vietnam war that raised ire and anger with the radical elitists. If you can remember, it was Nixon who tried to have John Lennon deported. Moreover many musical pundits and historians have never forgiven Presley for the letter(now made public)which Presley wrote to Nixon denouncing Un-American activities along with communist sympathizers such as Jane Fonda and divulging a staunch anticommunist political rhetoric. Jann Wenner founder and editor of the left leaning Rolling Stone magazine, has publicly critique Presley for his meeting and association with Nixon. This is the reason, I believe that he put Presley at number 3 behind Bob Dylan and the Beatles in his list of the greatest entertainers of all time,(Rolling Stone List). Dylan? the Beatles? more influential and greater than Presley? His objectivity was shrouded and obscure by his left leaning political affiliation. I also personally think, this is one reason that his stature has not been favorable with the powers that be that govern the Recording Industry Association of America.
PEACE OUT RICK
Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#12458 Sep 6, 2013
I happen to agree with everything you said Paul: But remember Elvis was the first. He came before the NARAS and Grammys, and RIAA. He was the first pop musical explosion that singlehandedly revolutionized the music and culture of his time. In a fair and perfect world you may ask yourself, how many Grammys and awards would Presley win? but we as a society, have never lived in a fair and impartial world. So the famous quote which applies to Presley's legacy that of being "Before anyone was doing anything Elvis was doing everything". To reiterate, Elvis came before these so called coveted awards. Simply stated Elvis was true revolutionary. No barometer of Grammy awards can measure his unique stature on the echelons of popular music history.
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12459 Sep 6, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
In all earnest Rick, I assume and this is only an assumption that the 1960's counterculture crowd have never forgiven Presley for his 1972 meeting with President Nixon. Elvis Presley's political leanings and ideology were moderate to conservative. He was not a left wing radical or Zealot.He was later to raise more eyebrows when he met then governor of Alabama George Wallace who advocated a segregationist agenda. Of course, Presley was good friends with former governor of Georgia and President Jimmy Carter(a democrat). But it was his historical meeting with Nixon at the height of the Vietnam war that raised ire and anger with the radical elitists. If you can remember, it was Nixon who tried to have John Lennon deported. Moreover many musical pundits and historians have never forgiven Presley for the letter(now made public)which Presley wrote to Nixon denouncing Un-American activities along with communist sympathizers such as Jane Fonda and divulging a staunch anticommunist political rhetoric. Jann Wenner founder and editor of the left leaning Rolling Stone magazine, has publicly critique Presley for his meeting and association with Nixon. This is the reason, I believe that he put Presley at number 3 behind Bob Dylan and the Beatles in his list of the greatest entertainers of all time,(Rolling Stone List). Dylan? the Beatles? more influential and greater than Presley? His objectivity was shrouded and obscure by his left leaning political affiliation. I also personally think, this is one reason that his stature has not been favorable with the powers that be that govern the Recording Industry Association of America.
PEACE OUT RICK
A minor point-but Elvis met Nixon in 1970 not 72.
I will point out that other Rolling Stone associates such as Dave Marsh and David Dalton very effectively seperated Elvis' suspected politics from his music making.
They have given Elvis many extremely complimentary articles and shown him world of respect.
Marsh wrote liner notes for the 1970s boxset,
"Walk a Mile in My Shoes" and in those notes he very commandingly showed how much good music Elvis recorded in the 1970s-how many performances and tours he undertook and how eclectic his music truely was.
His essay makes a superb case for Elvis constantly working at his craft-even in his spare time with jams and gospel sings.
Now eclectic does not always translate into coordinated and Elvis certainly jumped around while recording from one genre to another but he was working hard at his profession.
Marsh points out the output of singles and albums in that time frame and total songs recorded-laying to rest that Elvis did not work at his music.
So some Rolling Stone editors and writers were certainly able to concentrate on his music and talent.
Rolling Stone proclaimed Thats Allright Mama as the big bang of rock music.
Their 1969 review of Elvis returning to live performances had adjectives such as "Supernatural.....his own resurrection"
It is their review of a 1971 sold out show in Boston where the phrase "Prince From Another Planet" came from.
His politics probably did hurt him, but I think newer critics of the last 30 years just have no inkling of the musical landscape in 1953 before Elvis. They have no understanding of the change that was created with the Big Bang of Rock.
World culture was forever changed, sexuality was thrust forward into the limelight, hair styles, clothes, all began to transform from designing for adults to designing for teens and young adults.
Young critics just are too far removed from that Big Bang to realize the total scope of those first years of rock.
So they want to start the rock era with The Beatles, Dylan and the Stones the "2nd" generation of rock stars.
The Beatles wrote and that was the beginning of a new era-Elvis could not compete on that level-he had no interest in writing.
Dylan said Elvis' instrument was his voice-but to critics of today that means nothing it appears.
Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#12460 Sep 6, 2013
To Paul: Your encyclopedic knowledge of the subject at hand is excellent and without peer. Your writings (among others) are the reason why I participate in this forum. Great job Paul.
Dolbyscat

Chilliwack, Canada

#12461 Sep 6, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
In all earnest Rick, I assume and this is only an assumption that the 1960's counterculture crowd have never forgiven Presley for his 1972 meeting with President Nixon. Elvis Presley's political leanings and ideology were moderate to conservative. He was not a left wing radical or Zealot.He was later to raise more eyebrows when he met then governor of Alabama George Wallace who advocated a segregationist agenda. Of course, Presley was good friends with former governor of Georgia and President Jimmy Carter(a democrat). But it was his historical meeting with Nixon at the height of the Vietnam war that raised ire and anger with the radical elitists. If you can remember, it was Nixon who tried to have John Lennon deported. Moreover many musical pundits and historians have never forgiven Presley for the letter(now made public)which Presley wrote to Nixon denouncing Un-American activities along with communist sympathizers such as Jane Fonda and divulging a staunch anticommunist political rhetoric. Jann Wenner founder and editor of the left leaning Rolling Stone magazine, has publicly critique Presley for his meeting and association with Nixon. This is the reason, I believe that he put Presley at number 3 behind Bob Dylan and the Beatles in his list of the greatest entertainers of all time,(Rolling Stone List). Dylan? the Beatles? more influential and greater than Presley? His objectivity was shrouded and obscure by his left leaning political affiliation. I also personally think, this is one reason that his stature has not been favorable with the powers that be that govern the Recording Industry Association of America.
PEACE OUT RICK
C'mon Vic, you're more intelligent than that, and that alone put's you in a different class to most Elvis fans. You had to reach out to 1972 before you could find a half good reason for Elvis not winning a Grammy. By that time Elvis was producing nothing of any great import, and was generally regarded as washed-up...No not by his die-hard fans, but even they would have to admit he wasn't the Elvis of old. It took him dying to get back in the news.....Sheesh, grasping at straws ain't we? Still you do manage to do it in a more eloquent fashion than is normal here, but good writin' don't make BS any more palatable.
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12462 Sep 6, 2013
Dolbyscat wrote:
<quoted text>C'mon Vic, you're more intelligent than that, and that alone put's you in a different class to most Elvis fans. You had to reach out to 1972 before you could find a half good reason for Elvis not winning a Grammy. By that time Elvis was producing nothing of any great import, and was generally regarded as washed-up...No not by his die-hard fans, but even they would have to admit he wasn't the Elvis of old. It took him dying to get back in the news.....Sheesh, grasping at straws ain't we? Still you do manage to do it in a more eloquent fashion than is normal here, but good writin' don't make BS any more palatable.
I will have to disagree on a few points, 1969 into mid 1973 Elvis was not considered washed up by anyone who really kept tabs on his career-every concert sold out, multi-million dollar offers for concerts in Japan, England, etc...still competitive in his single sales with contempory artists of that time period.
He was the 12 the largest record seller of the 1970s even though he died in 77.
As I pointed out Dave Marsh of Rolling Stone certainly did not find his career washed up in 1972 as he and Rolling Stone magazine were front and center at the famous Madison Square Garden press conference and were thrilled to be there.
After tickets sold out in a matter of hours for those New York Garden shows-more shows were added to make it a total of 4.
George Harrison attended one, so did Lennon and Dylan and a host of other celebrity fans.
He was not "cutting edge" for sure in 72, but washed up was also IMO not the case. If you look at videos taken of his 69-77 concerts there are as many 12-20 year olds as 30-50 year olds he was still attracting new fans each year.

Burning Love in 1972 was a huge smash hit, kept out of Billboards #1 spot by Chuck Berrys My Ding a Ling, a novelty song.
The MGM film "Elvis On Tour" documentary was filmed in 72 and it recouped its costs in the first week of its release.

In 72 Col Parker was receiving so many overseas offers (for serious money) that Parker came up with the idea of the Satellite show from Hawaii which was top rated and produced a #1 album.
But all that said after 1973 Elvis certainly was on a downhill slide that many saw as washed up.
His marriage had fallen apart, his prescription drug problem getting worse and his health suffereing.
But 72 was not a year of "washed up" by a fair analysis.
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12463 Sep 6, 2013
As to the question of best selling artists heres a link to "The Worlds Music Charts"
its research is beyond reproach using over 70 world music charts going back to Crosby days.
Their methodology is fully explained and detailed.
The information is priceless in scope and any question you may have about artists and eras of recorded music is probably answered.

http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
For the record they list the Beatles as the top recording act with Elvis at number 2-BUT they admit that with the huge sales of each and the huge chart success of each - that is could go either way.
They give the edge to the Beatles because they feel their world wide album sales are higher than Elvis even though singles sales they give the edge to Elvis.
MJackson is listed at #19.
Dolbyscat

Chilliwack, Canada

#12464 Sep 6, 2013
Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
I will have to disagree on a few points, 1969 into mid 1973 Elvis was not considered washed up by anyone who really kept tabs on his career-every concert sold out, multi-million dollar offers for concerts in Japan, England, etc...still competitive in his single sales with contempory artists of that time period.
He was the 12 the largest record seller of the 1970s even though he died in 77.
As I pointed out Dave Marsh of Rolling Stone certainly did not find his career washed up in 1972 as he and Rolling Stone magazine were front and center at the famous Madison Square Garden press conference and were thrilled to be there.
After tickets sold out in a matter of hours for those New York Garden shows-more shows were added to make it a total of 4.
George Harrison attended one, so did Lennon and Dylan and a host of other celebrity fans.
He was not "cutting edge" for sure in 72, but washed up was also IMO not the case. If you look at videos taken of his 69-77 concerts there are as many 12-20 year olds as 30-50 year olds he was still attracting new fans each year.
Burning Love in 1972 was a huge smash hit, kept out of Billboards #1 spot by Chuck Berrys My Ding a Ling, a novelty song.
The MGM film "Elvis On Tour" documentary was filmed in 72 and it recouped its costs in the first week of its release.
In 72 Col Parker was receiving so many overseas offers (for serious money) that Parker came up with the idea of the Satellite show from Hawaii which was top rated and produced a #1 album.
But all that said after 1973 Elvis certainly was on a downhill slide that many saw as washed up.
His marriage had fallen apart, his prescription drug problem getting worse and his health suffereing.
But 72 was not a year of "washed up" by a fair analysis.
Ok!! So now we have both been in error by 1 year, but I don't have an excuse to make...I was wrong...Don't hear that said much around here.
Paul

East Saint Louis, IL

#12465 Sep 6, 2013
Dolbyscat wrote:
<quoted text>Ok!! So now we have both been in error by 1 year, but I don't have an excuse to make...I was wrong...Don't hear that said much around here.
So my friend, as they say "its a wash!"
donna page

UK

#12466 Sep 6, 2013
Michael Jackson the greatest he is no 1 and nobody else comes close.Michael the true and only king.nobody can touch on MJ music or music videos.and he also just a wonderful man.love you Michael.our gorgeous prince Michael Jackson
Realist

San Antonio, TX

#12470 Sep 6, 2013
Uh! Did you not read what Paul said? The World Music Charts Have Elvis way ahead of MJ, as does the Guinness Book of World Records and the RIAA. Elvis beats MJ. Case closed.
Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#12471 Sep 6, 2013
To Dolbyscat: How's it going? As always you made some good points,however I think Paul disputed the validity of your statements successfully.
Case in Point: By 1972 Elvis was still a hit on the charts. The single Separate Ways/Always on my Mind was receiving decent airplay. And of course, "Burning Love" had catapulted to the top of the charts, reaching number 1 on Cashbox Magazine and number 2 on Billboard. The Aloha special established Presley on a new dimension unreachable by any other entertainer within that time span. A 1974 poll done by Variety magazine stated that the name Elvis was more recognizable than any other two names in Western Culture. Mao Tse Tung being somewhat more widely known in the eastern part of the world. This is hardly a sign of a washed up performer. Moreover on February 12, 1977, I was fortunate to witness the Elvis phenomenon live when he played at the old Hollywood Sportarium. I was 11 at the time and accompanied by my mother and younger brother. The concert sold out within an hour. A week before the concert Elvis had the number 1 country song the single Moody Blue/ Pledging My Love. This was 1977 and Elvis was still the single biggest attraction in United States. Hardly a sign of a washed up performer !!
Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#12472 Sep 6, 2013
In furthering my statements, I do not think Elvis was ever a washed up performer. He may have been under the influence of prescribed medication and his personal life filled with drudgery and excess, but
he was still the top moneymaker in the music Industry. To reiterate, this is hardly a sign of a washed up performer. Don't you think ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Black Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wade Robson & Why Many Molestation Victims Don'... (Jun '13) 1 hr The Power Of Mast... 71
News Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (Aug '10) Sat rabbi pizzo 12
ConfusedÂ…By Love Is The Perfect Rom-Com For You... Fri Eve_Langdon 2
News Grammys 47 mins ago 9:06 p.m.Pregnant Beyonce g... Feb 16 Confry1 1
White humiliation and slavery (Jan '16) Feb 15 Isis 10
News Adele dedicates album win to Beyonce: Why mega ... Feb 14 Phil 2
News Michelle Malkin: The Hip-Hop President - All Sw... (Sep '12) Feb 14 MBTN 11
More from around the web