150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

There are 12888 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.

Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#13946 Dec 15, 2013
Chris wrote:
Octo, I found out more info about the Beatles digital release & that copyright law. The law only applies to the European Union. And the law states that anything commercially released has 70 years of copyright protection. Anything that is unreleased only has 50 years of copyright protection. So that's why the Beatles are releasing all those unreleased recordings from 1963. Bob Dylan did the same thing last year, & the Beach Boys are doing it too. So we could see a lot of great artists from back then releasing a lot of unreleased music in the coming years.
Artists and recording companies would love to control what people hear and what they do not. I am aware of the 50 year copyright protection law but 70 years? We'd all be dead. It is great that some artists agree to put out the material themselves but it is of their choosing. I like the legalized unreleased music as well. But bootlegs are basically for the hardcore fan of the artist and since it is old music, it really does not usually sell that much to matter anyway. It is a small collector's market for historical rock n roll performances. I was on You Tube last night and saw tons of Beatle footage I've never seen before. It just keeps coming. Why not enjoy them now? I highly doubt that lesser bands from that era would sell much of anything because it does not have that big of a audience or demand. Anyway, I love finding legalized Walmart bootlegs. I've bought them from artists such as AC/DC, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors and The Beach Boys. The price is low so it is cool as hell. I do not bother with today's crapola. They can keep the shit buried for 1700 hundred years for all I care.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#13947 Dec 15, 2013
*an audience or demand...
Chris

United States

#13948 Dec 15, 2013
I know 70 years sounds like a long time, but people are living longer these days. Plus, it means that some of the living heirs can make some money, after the artist dies. Not to mention, if they don't release the unreleased stuff, to extend the copyrights, they could end up watching others make money off of their hard work, while they make nothing. So for financial reasons, it makes sense. Except for the blunder that Paul & Yoko made, in letting Michael Jackson buy the publishing rights to all those songs, the Beatles have been very smart in managing the bands music & legacy.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#13949 Dec 15, 2013
Chris wrote:
I know 70 years sounds like a long time, but people are living longer these days. Plus, it means that some of the living heirs can make some money, after the artist dies. Not to mention, if they don't release the unreleased stuff, to extend the copyrights, they could end up watching others make money off of their hard work, while they make nothing. So for financial reasons, it makes sense. Except for the blunder that Paul & Yoko made, in letting Michael Jackson buy the publishing rights to all those songs, the Beatles have been very smart in managing the bands music & legacy.
Surviving artists and estates can still make money if they do put some of out themselves but it is just a matter of finding enough fans out there that are interested in hearing studio outtake material and unreleased performances. A lot of people want perfect masters and do not get the pleasure of hearing an artist working on a songs or performances that were rejected by the artists for release in the first place. It is still basically a collector's market, not for the mass buying public. Besides, I am surprised how quickly a brand new album can sometimes be put on You Tube these days. Last night, I found Black Sabbath's new album "13" and listened to it. I even listened to tracks from Boston's brand new CD. Both were terrible and I am glad I did not waste my money. The recording industry is pretty dire because a lot of the stuff does not sound good at all. Sabbath returned to their old style but I just thought that the music just wasn't strong enough. Ozzy was buried in the mix and I could tell his voice is shot. Boston was worse because it sounded fake like the singer was singing to a pre programed machine. By far, the worst Boston album I've ever heard. I loved their first two albums and their "Third Stage" in 1986.

I think it is a good idea what The Beatles are doing and there is nothing wrong with it because it gives fans a chance to listen to some extra stuff to go with the new BBC 2 project. It is Paul and Apple trying to please the collector Beatle fans.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#13951 Dec 15, 2013
Chris wrote:
Octo, I found out more info about the Beatles digital release & that copyright law. The law only applies to the European Union. And the law states that anything commercially released has 70 years of copyright protection. Anything that is unreleased only has 50 years of copyright protection. So that's why the Beatles are releasing all those unreleased recordings from 1963. Bob Dylan did the same thing last year, & the Beach Boys are doing it too. So we could see a lot of great artists from back then releasing a lot of unreleased music in the coming years.
I had no idea that law was so extensive.
Chris

United States

#13952 Dec 16, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I had no idea that law was so extensive.
Yeah a few years ago, some people lobbied to extend the number of years for the copyright. I wonder what the law says for other countries, like the USA. If the law is not as extensive, that means the rights have been lost for a lot of people in the 50s & 60s. Although, I think if the song gets remixed, rerecorded, or altered in any way, it gets a new copyright. Which is why a lot of artists remix or rerecord their songs.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#13957 Dec 16, 2013
You always have a lot of fascinating information on Elvis future certifications and the RIAA,Victor,as I said before,I knew that a lot of the soundtracks did a lot better than they were given credit for,for instance,`Clambake',I thought the title of this movie was a lot worse than the movie itself,but the soundtracks always included a fair number of `bonus' songs,in the case of `Clambake',it had two great bonus songs that were A side singles,`Guitar Man',and `Big Boss Man',and I'm sure that this was a factor in this album surpassing the 500,000 mark,as well as many of the others,I've been really railing against the RIAA and their unfair treatment of Elvis for all the time I've been on this site,could it be that they've been reading my harsh criticisms of their organization and are finally beginning to listen to reason,if they are,then I know that my opinions have accomplished something positive for Elvis,peace out.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13958 Dec 16, 2013
RICK wrote:
I've been really railing against the RIAA and their unfair treatment of Elvis for all the time I've been on this site,could it be that they've been reading my harsh criticisms of their organization and are finally beginning to listen to reason,if they are,then I know that my opinions have accomplished something positive for Elvis,peace out.
I'm preety sure the RIAA doesn't read your posts Rick, they would take one look at the way you compose your rants and deem them un-readable. Didn't anyone teach you how and when to use punctuation, or the space bar???

PS Happy Holidays....:)
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13959 Dec 16, 2013
To Rick : Yes, but as I have previously posted on this thread and forum, the RIAA only certified Presley sales that predated the year 1973. Remember the 1973 contractual buyout agreement negotiated
by Colonel Tom Parker with RCA at the behest of Presley? The Colonel with the assistance of his henchmen, namely Tom Diskin, had intertwined a non audit clause with RCA that Presley knew nothing about. Presley could not ask for an audit without the consent of the Colonel. This is the main reason, that is not just the records sold, amid the wake and aftermath of Presley's death. Is all the sales from Presley's entire catalog from the years 1973 to 1982. This is why no one knows for sure how many records Presley sold. We can only guess the numbers. To reiterate, In 1992 and 1999, respectively, the auditors from the RIAA only certified Presley sales that predated 1973. This is the reason that it's been so frustrating for the powers that be at the RIAA, to come up with the exact figures. The Presley records sales from 1973 onward, were probably shredded or very conveniently lost by the Colonel and his robber barons.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13960 Dec 16, 2013
Moreover, I do not think, that we can fault the RIAA for Parker's fraudulent affair. I do agree with you though, only a fraction of
Presley's record sales have been accounted for, by the Recording Industry Association of America.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13961 Dec 16, 2013
In fact, Ernst Jorgensen, the man responsible for certifying Presley sales through Sony/ BMG to the RIAA, has gone on record divulging the lost and missing sales. He stated years ago that "we have not been able to locate those astronomic figures from the years in question".
Hopefully, some semblance of missing sales can be located. But this is all for naught. In the estimation of many respectable industry analysts,
there can be no doubt that Presley is the best selling artist of all time.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13962 Dec 16, 2013
Finally and conclusion: I am looking forward on purchasing the behemoth Beatle box set scheduled for release in January of 2014. I hear that they have intertwined many rare and alternate takes never before heard. Can't wait. Peace out!!

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13968 Dec 16, 2013
Victor Abreu Miami Beach wrote:
. This is the reason that it's been so frustrating for the powers that be at the RIAA, to come up with the exact figures. The Presley records sales from 1973 onward, were probably shredded or very conveniently lost by the Colonel and his robber barons.
Observer Rules, please explain this, surely The Colonel was not in a position to shred a record companies record of sales...????

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#13969 Dec 16, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah a few years ago, some people lobbied to extend the number of years for the copyright. I wonder what the law says for other countries, like the USA. If the law is not as extensive, that means the rights have been lost for a lot of people in the 50s & 60s. Although, I think if the song gets remixed, rerecorded, or altered in any way, it gets a new copyright. Which is why a lot of artists remix or rerecord their songs.
Interesting information. That's one explanation for remixes or rerecordings. I wasn't aware of it.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13970 Dec 16, 2013
What's up Dolby? Nice to hear from you, my good friend. Has Observer Rules ever disputed the validity of this particular point? Naw, you must be kidding? An Elvis fan capable of disputing this particular point? The Colonel who was, for it's time, a modern PT Barnum and along the same lines as boxing promoter Don King, not engaged in the thievery of not robbing his protégé blind? The facts are that the Colonel was in conjunction with RCA executives Rocco Laginestra, Joan Deary , Anthony Lecouton and others in robbing Presley blind. In fact, Presley had less than $ 5 million in his bank coffers at the time of his death. Explain that. You do not have to be a scholar from the halls of academia, to attest to this well known fact, of plain ole robbery. To make matters worse, and it pains me to state this, but Presley was no Summa Cum Laude when it came to business. He got taken for a ride by this carny barker. Who ever disputes this, must want to obscure this issue with sheer ignorance. To reiterate, nice to hear from you Dolby. Happy Holidays to you and your family.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13971 Dec 16, 2013
Moreover Dolby!! Judge Evan who presided over the trial, became suspicious of the illicit business shenanigans of the Colonel, and thus, appointed an attorney named Blanchard Tual to look after Lisa Marie's (Presley's daughter) best interest and act as a trustee for the Presley Estate. After a thorough investigation, the greedy Colonel Parker was removed as business executor of the Presley Estate. Tual's, main job was to investigate why was there a non audit clause fixated in Presley's 1973 buyout contractual agreement. What was the Colonel's defense? What did the Colonel counter with? He stated for the record that he was not aware of the amount of records his client had sold. Could you believe this? This rhetoric being divulged by a business manager. What a feeble defense. Don't you agree?

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13972 Dec 16, 2013
Victor Abreu Miami Beach wrote:
What's up Dolby? Nice to hear from you, my good friend. Has Observer Rules ever disputed the validity of this particular point? Naw, you must be kidding? An Elvis fan capable of disputing this particular point? The Colonel who was, for it's time, a modern PT Barnum and along the same lines as boxing promoter Don King, not engaged in the thievery of not robbing his protégé blind? The facts are that the Colonel was in conjunction with RCA executives Rocco Laginestra, Joan Deary , Anthony Lecouton and others in robbing Presley blind. In fact, Presley had less than $ 5 million in his bank coffers at the time of his death. Explain that. You do not have to be a scholar from the halls of academia, to attest to this well known fact, of plain ole robbery. To make matters worse, and it pains me to state this, but Presley was no Summa Cum Laude when it came to business. He got taken for a ride by this carny barker. Who ever disputes this, must want to obscure this issue with sheer ignorance. To reiterate, nice to hear from you Dolby. Happy Holidays to you and your family.
"Observer Rules" My point is that Parker did not control the tabulation of sales figures, that would have come from his record company.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13973 Dec 16, 2013
Not so Dolby: How wrong Observer Rules is. Louis Coutolenc, the RCA President at the time of Presley's death divulged in court that Parker was instrumental in mismanaging and fabricating the tabulations to deduct Presley's sales figures. This is why Presley was never audited. in other words, no independent audited record sales figures were ever established for Elvis Aron Presley. This information became public domain, and thus, responsible for the removal of Parker as business executor of the Elvis Presley Estate. Parker also created 2 corporate entities named "Boxcar Productions" and "All Star Shows" and diverted the funds and proceeds to their respective bank accounts which were managed by whom? You guessed it, the good ole Colonel himself. In all fairness, and after all the fraud committed, Parker reach an agreement removing himself as Presley's business manager permanently. Priscilla Presley was appointed chief executive officer for the Presley Estate not long after that. In sum, Parker controlled all aspects of Presley's career and beyond. He was undeniably in cahoots with RCA officials. This was later to prove his undoing. "Observer Rules" needs to read and be informed a little more before stating this outlandish conclusion.
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#13974 Dec 16, 2013
Anyway Dolby, I do not how late it is in Canada, but it's way past my bedtime here in Miami Beach, Fl. Peace out my friend. To reiterate, Happy Holidays!!
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#13976 Dec 17, 2013
Dolbyscat,dear,Victor is a very bright man who knows a lot about The King of Rock and Roll,I wouldn't doubt him too much if I were you,since you don't know hardly anything about the man and here's the proof,name 5 singles that were certified multiplatinum by the RIAA for Elvis,betcha' won't know the answer,see'ya.

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.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Police find child porn on Gene Simmons computer!! 10 hr Len is Disgusted 2
Was Michael Jackson 10 hr Len is Disgusted 5
Poll Reasons why MJ'S fan's have left this forum= 10 hr Len is Disgusted 6
Why Are MJ Fans So Hardheaded? 10 hr Len is Disgusted 4
News Engineer 'has 20 new Jacko songs' Sun Michael Jacksons ... 10
News Valley Memorial For MJ at Presley Estate (Jul '09) Sun Michael Jacksons ... 5
News I did the 'Moonwalk' dance before legendary Mic... Aug 25 FYI 1
More from around the web