150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

Dec 6, 2008 | Posted by: KB50MJ | Full story: talk.livedaily.com

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.

Comments
12,521 - 12,540 of 12,754 Comments Last updated Monday Aug 25
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14207 Feb 10, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah you're probably right about Elvis not knowing. If he had known, he probably would have fired him, because he wouldn't have been able to trust him. I bet Elvis was turning over in his grave, if he could see what that a**hole was doing with his music after he passed away. It still puzzles me how he gained so much control over Elvis's music. When Elvis died, that should've ended any control he had, over Elvis's music.
The Colonel wasted no time getting Vernon to sign a contract that wasn't in his best interest.

Vernon Presley died in 1979.

By 1980, Priscilla sued Tom Parker and he had to pay the estate only five million or some other ridiculously low amount. But what it did do was it stated that Parker had no rights to Elvis's name and image anymore. The dude was a crook. I wish Elvis had fired him but he accepted Parker's management agreements.
maria

Heywood, UK

#14210 Feb 11, 2014
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
The Colonel wasted no time getting Vernon to sign a contract that wasn't in his best interest.
Vernon Presley died in 1979.
By 1980, Priscilla sued Tom Parker and he had to pay the estate only five million or some other ridiculously low amount. But what it did do was it stated that Parker had no rights to Elvis's name and image anymore. The dude was a crook. I wish Elvis had fired him but he accepted Parker's management agreements.
There was nothing to stop Elvis going anywhere in the world when he was not working he had lots of holidays, Parker could not stop him he did not own him, if Elvis wanted to go to a country for a break he would just take off and go and he did not have to tell his fan's either it made no difference too his work,'' he would say he can' t take a pi** with out 10 ten men following him". He would be very secretive about going away and nobody following him that is the way he liked it.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14212 Feb 11, 2014
Right on,too,Octo,about The Beatle's `A Hard day's night' and `Help',they were silly movies as well,and they played themselves in both movies,not particularly an acting strech on their part,I also saw the other day `Magical Mystery Tour',sheesh,what a piece of garbage,this movie makes Elvis' worst films look like oscar contenders,peace out.
Chris

Lansing, MI

#14213 Feb 11, 2014
RICK wrote:
Right on,too,Octo,about The Beatle's `A Hard day's night' and `Help',they were silly movies as well,and they played themselves in both movies,not particularly an acting strech on their part,I also saw the other day `Magical Mystery Tour',sheesh,what a piece of garbage,this movie makes Elvis' worst films look like oscar contenders,peace out.
Rick, the Beatles had no intentions of being taken as serious actors. They were doing it for fun, & the movie studio's were doing it to cash in on Beatlemania, because noone thought it would last. As far as Magical Mystery Tour is concerned, it is a bad movie. But their are several reasons why it was bad. First, they were on drugs, which is why it is so weird. Also, they wrote & directed it, which they had no business doing, because they were musicians not film makers.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14214 Feb 11, 2014
RICK wrote:
Right on,too,Octo,about The Beatle's `A Hard day's night' and `Help',they were silly movies as well,and they played themselves in both movies,not particularly an acting strech on their part,I also saw the other day `Magical Mystery Tour',sheesh,what a piece of garbage,this movie makes Elvis' worst films look like oscar contenders,peace out.
The Beatles only made five films but they made several promo clips. "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help" were silly and I do not even remember "Magical Mystery Tour" because it definitely did not make sense. What I object to is the continued put down of Elvis's work as if all his films were bad because The Beatles came along and saved rock n roll. I would have to disagree that "A Hard Day's Night" should be praised as a triumph of art because it when I first saw it, I was shocked how bad it was. Boring even. George put shaving cream on a bathroom mirror and started to shave it while John was in a bubble bath in his underwear. Sorry, but for all the criticism Elvis gets for his movies, he never did anything that cheesy. "Kissin' Cousins" was probably the worse Elvis film followed by "Easy Come, Easy Go" and "Clambake" Not really a bad track record for the king considering. I am still sick of the same old negative stories written about Elvis as if they copy the same old articles and repeat them time and time again. True Elvis fans know what Elvis did and did not do. <sigh>
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14216 Feb 11, 2014
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Rick, the Beatles had no intentions of being taken as serious actors. They were doing it for fun, & the movie studio's were doing it to cash in on Beatlemania, because noone thought it would last. As far as Magical Mystery Tour is concerned, it is a bad movie. But their are several reasons why it was bad. First, they were on drugs, which is why it is so weird. Also, they wrote & directed it, which they had no business doing, because they were musicians not film makers.
At the same token, Elvis was doing his movies for fun. But every once in a while you could see that Elvis had natural acting ability. His best film is still the excellent "King Creole" in 1958. Being typecast in a string of silly musicals did not make Elvis a bad actor. It was a shame that Hollywood failed to see Elvis's full talent as a movie star with great promise.
Chris

Flint, MI

#14218 Feb 11, 2014
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
At the same token, Elvis was doing his movies for fun. But every once in a while you could see that Elvis had natural acting ability. His best film is still the excellent "King Creole" in 1958. Being typecast in a string of silly musicals did not make Elvis a bad actor. It was a shame that Hollywood failed to see Elvis's full talent as a movie star with great promise.
I know that he could act, & he got better with experience. I like some of his latter films, like the westerns that he did. It's too bad he never got to do his film project, that you had told me about previously. The one where he played a cop or a PI, I can't remember all the details you told me, but it sounded interesting. I think you're misunderstanding, my criticism of Elvis's movie career. It's cool that he wanted to do movies, I just think he should've been playing live as well, so his fans could see him live, & not just on a movie screen.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14219 Feb 12, 2014
I agree with you also on `King Creole',Octo,an exellent film with a top notch cast,Walter Matthau,Carolyn Jones,Dean Jagger,I wouldn't have blamed Elvis if he were a little bit intimidated doing this movie,and of course directed by Michael Curtiz,who directed `Casablanca' with Humphrey Bogart and `Yankee Doodle Dandy'with the great James Cagney and many other Hollywood classics,I liked many of Elvis' movies,and some that I did not,but one thing is undisputable,these movies were popular and made money for the various studios that made them,and in the the entertainment industry,that's the bottom line,peace out.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14220 Feb 12, 2014
RICK wrote:
I agree with you also on `King Creole',Octo,an exellent film with a top notch cast,Walter Matthau,Carolyn Jones,Dean Jagger,I wouldn't have blamed Elvis if he were a little bit intimidated doing this movie,and of course directed by Michael Curtiz,who directed `Casablanca' with Humphrey Bogart and `Yankee Doodle Dandy'with the great James Cagney and many other Hollywood classics,I liked many of Elvis' movies,and some that I did not,but one thing is undisputable,these movies were popular and made money for the various studios that made them,and in the the entertainment industry,that's the bottom line,peace out.
I think most of Elvis's films were well made for the era. After Elvis was discharged from the US Army, culture had changed to a softer pop sound instead of the blast of fifties rock n roll. It is the desire of any artist to want to progress and do different things that are still hugely successful. Elvis had achieved that in the early sixties by doing a wider range of musical styles. Some of Elvis's best film work and soundtracks were made in this period. The two dramatic films, "Wild In The Country" and "Flaming Star" just were not what most Elvis fans wanted. They were somewhat depressing in contrast to "Kid Galahad" "Follow That Dream" "Blue Hawaii" "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Fun In Acapulco" that were a lot more entertaining because they contained great songs with still high quality stories and dialogue. Of course by 1964, The Beatles first set on American soil and Bob Dylan was making a name for himself on the Folk circuit. Since the sixties were a decade of social change, the music was a large part of it. It did not mean that Elvis was being wiped out by anything. It just meant that it took Elvis longer to finish his contracts with the movie studios in Hollywood. Elvis did get better material starting in 1968 but by that time, most Elvis fans gave up on the standard Elvis picture. This set the stage for Elvis's greatest updated and modernized recordings at American studios in Memphis, 1969. Las Vegas and a return to live performance was another reinvention of Elvis. Awesome really. I loved that Elvis had the ability to be many different artists and still be Elvis. Pure genius.
Dennis hauser

Peoria, IL

#14222 Feb 13, 2014
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do not mind Elvis's musical Hollywood career. As an Elvis fan, I judge each film and I do not lump them all together because they all were still a little bit different from another. When the movie contracts were finally done, Elvis then returned to live performances and making studio albums. He did not have to follow trends. Sure, the music culture had changed but Elvis would have looked silly had he was doing hard rock, British Invasion pop or singer-songwriter soft rock. It just wasn't who he was. In my opinion, his work between 1968-1977 shows growth. It is by far my favorite period of his entire career. He evolved as an artist by being a movie star first. It was because some of Elvis's better soundtracks were developed by concepts that were created around the film. Not exactly hit material but challenging nevertheless. Because the soundtracks were limited to the movie, it did not always work as a popular radio format. "Frankie And Johnny" for example was set in the early 1900's on a riverboat and the music refected the time period. Elvis sung in German, Spanish, Italian and Chinese. He made Hawaiian music, Dixieland, Mid Eastern, Native American, Tin Pan Alley, Big Band Night Club Ballads, Blues and did it all pretty well. It made him a better singer anyway when he had something he could work with. It wasn't all silly musical numbers. But most non Elvis fans tend to have a very narrow minded view of what Elvis exactly did. I do not because I've been listening to it for years. It is a very misunderstood sixties decade but with many brilliant performances scattered through out. Elvis did not need to be The Beatles because he was already so much more...
Octo, I agree wholeheartedly! I pulled some of my cds for a road trip. Johnny Rivers Hits, The Beatles - Let It Be( watching them on the Grammy special got their tunes going thru my head), and Elvis' Fool cd. Signing to all of them like a fool, I remembered why I always felt closer to Elvis' music. I always liked his' earliest songs, but his' later ones truley showed how much he matured.
He was the Sinatra of our time, I just wished he would of lived a little longer and became the elder statesman of entertainment. But, maybe that just wasn't his' style, but wouldn't it of been cool?
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14227 Feb 14, 2014
Dennis hauser wrote:
<quoted text>
Octo, I agree wholeheartedly! I pulled some of my cds for a road trip. Johnny Rivers Hits, The Beatles - Let It Be( watching them on the Grammy special got their tunes going thru my head), and Elvis' Fool cd. Signing to all of them like a fool, I remembered why I always felt closer to Elvis' music. I always liked his' earliest songs, but his' later ones truley showed how much he matured.
He was the Sinatra of our time, I just wished he would of lived a little longer and became the elder statesman of entertainment. But, maybe that just wasn't his' style, but wouldn't it of been cool?
I really do not know why you'd compare Elvis to Sinatra because Elvis was a rock star that happened to expand his range into other areas. Elvis was so different because no matter what type of song he attepted, Elvis was still the ultimate rocker, especially live. What is really cool is listening to studio outtakes, unedited jams, rehearsals and undubbed recordings. They are amazing because some of them are far different than the original known masters. I just got my lastest title called, "Unedited Masters: Nashville 1970 Revisited" It wasn't really masters but unedited takes, outtakes and different mixes. The sound is fantastic and some of the songs are vastly superior to what I've ever heard before. I think Elvis's best work is on bootleg. It just blows my mind. For some reason unknown to me, RCA, Sony and FTD really never do Elvis justice. Nevertheless, for fans that desire to hear more, you'll be surprised what is really out there. In my humble opinion, Elvis is the greatest recording artist that has ever lived. His music is still growing and changing over time. He sounds better than I've ever could imagine. It is remarkable since I've been an Elvis fan for over thirty seven years and he is still blowing me away. The recordings have new life to them and they never get stale or old. I am still stunned by the stuff I've been getting.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#14231 Feb 15, 2014
Another honorable mention is a decent Elvis audience recording called "Elvis In St Louis" from 3-22-76. The sound is not perfect but it is not that bad either. Elvis did a decent concert and his band played well probably because of Larrie Londin on the drums. Larrie hit much harder than Ronnie Tutt. He probably was inspiring to Elvis and the other guys somewhat at that time. Elvis sounds really good and the band rocks at certain points but for some unknown reason, Elvis runs out of energy towards the end of the show and cuts it short. There are some excellent bonus tracks from Johnson City, Tn 3-19-76.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#14232 Feb 15, 2014
http://youtu.be/dXv22sRx2Xw
I've Lost you(take 6)- Elvis
I think this is a great take - much better than master
DENNIS HAUSER

Peoria, IL

#14235 Feb 17, 2014
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
I really do not know why you'd compare Elvis to Sinatra because Elvis was a rock star that happened to expand his range into other areas. Elvis was so different because no matter what type of song he attepted, Elvis was still the ultimate rocker, especially live. What is really cool is listening to studio outtakes, unedited jams, rehearsals and undubbed recordings. They are amazing because some of them are far different than the original known masters. I just got my lastest title called, "Unedited Masters: Nashville 1970 Revisited" It wasn't really masters but unedited takes, outtakes and different mixes. The sound is fantastic and some of the songs are vastly superior to what I've ever heard before. I think Elvis's best work is on bootleg. It just blows my mind. For some reason unknown to me, RCA, Sony and FTD really never do Elvis justice. Nevertheless, for fans that desire to hear more, you'll be surprised what is really out there. In my humble opinion, Elvis is the greatest recording artist that has ever lived. His music is still growing and changing over time. He sounds better than I've ever could imagine. It is remarkable since I've been an Elvis fan for over thirty seven years and he is still blowing me away. The recordings have new life to them and they never get stale or old. I am still stunned by the stuff I've been getting.
I'm not comparing Elvis to Sinatra, as one being better then the other, I'm saying, the generation before Elvis had Sinatra as their main/top musical entertainment. Sinatra made movies, also and did a variety of music. The next generation had Elvis, which took entertainment to a level, which no one will ever match.
FYI

Dallas, TX

#14240 Feb 17, 2014
For the real Elvis fans, check out some rare 8mm footage of Elvis singing I'm Leaving. You can find it on the Elvis Australia website.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14241 Feb 19, 2014
And a not so talked about aspect of Elvis,his love of state of the art gadgets,for example,when Elvis met The Beatles in 1965,Paul Mccartney stated that Elvis was the first person he ever saw with a remote control for his television set,Elvis also possessed one of the first `cell' phones,it came in a suitcase with special instructions on how to operate it,Elvis also owned one of the first VCRs,and during his frequent hospital stays in the '70's would have it hooked up in his room and would watch tapes of Monty Python's Flying Circus,and actress and former girlfriend Cybill Shepard stated Elvis was the first person she ever saw who enjoyed drinking bottled water,and of course Elvis record company,RCA,also made televisions and radios,and would send Elvis their latest state of the art models,free of charge,and everything that they would send him would have a special inscription,`MADE ESPECIALLY FOR ELVIS PRESLEY',his bed matresses and other items in his home also had this inscription,peace out.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14245 Feb 21, 2014
And RCA also made phonographs and stereos,too,peace out.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14250 Feb 24, 2014
And on the subject of Frank Sinatra,he did not have the unprecedented career that Elvis had.When it comes to record sales,gold and platinum records,and concert and movie tickets sold,and chart success,Sinatra is not in Elvis's league[is anyone,really].And there are also other indicators that he's not in Elvis's league;there are no Sinatra impersonators,his birth and death are not celebrated at all,ol' blue eyes also doesn't have a Graceland,where more than 18 million tickets have been sold in 30 years,but most importantly,Sinatra's music doesn't really register with people in the way that Elvis's did and continues to,and he is not as beloved or revered as The King for these and other reasons as well,peace out.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#14255 Mar 3, 2014
I've been looking at some of the Elvis sites and your posting here on Elvis receiving these new certifications,Victor,this information is causing quite a stir on some of these sites,some believing the information,and some not[like this fellow Brian Quinn].I believe what you are saying is the truth because a couple of the albums listed for certification[POT LUCK and GOOD TIMES]were mentioned in an article a few years back as being VERY close to certification,and I always knew that movie soundtracks like 1963's `FUN IN ACAPULCO[the top grossing movie musical of that year]was at least worthy of RIAA gold certification as well as many others because I OWN THEM and a good number of these albums are staples of many Elvis fans collections as well,and the other reason why I believe you is your information is very detailed and very specific,and what in the world would you hope to gain from lying about something like this,and it's common knowledge that Elvis's full scope of record sales have yet to be tabulated,and all of this makes perfect sense to me,if not Brian Quinn,peace out
Victor Abreu Miami Beach

Miami Beach, FL

#14257 Mar 3, 2014
To Rick: Good to hear from you as always: Brian Quinn just wanted to be the one to be divulging this type of information. To reiterate, We shall wait and see my friend. But too many periodicals and Fan clubs are stating the obvious, that Elvis is due at least 20 to 25 new certifications by the RIAA. I am hoping that an announcement will be forthcoming soon my good friend. A host of soundtracks such as
"Fun In Acapulco" should be certified 2x platinum anyhow. This album and the ones you mentioned such as "POT LUCK and "GOOD TIMES" sold enormously. Furthermore, if they have indeed located the lost sales in the wake and aftermath of Elvis Presley's death, then the controversy will cease to exist. But nevertheless and not withstanding, you and I both know that Elvis Aaron Presley is the greatest record seller of time. Bar none. Peace out to you, my good friend.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Michael Jackson Hit With New Abuse ClaimBy Dian... 15 min An NFL Fan 331
Alone And Forsaken: Michael Jackson's Dead Bir... 25 min Octopus 13
Writing About Writing About Michael Jackson 42 min goodvibrations 15
Octo is almighty and powerful, plus a millionaire 1 hr Octopus 7
Is Michael Jackson Really A Child Molester? 2 hr mjlover4life 155
Happy Birthday MJ: How 'Remember The Time' Remi... 2 hr goodvibrations 1
Michael Jackson is 100% Innocent 3 hr Pop Tart- 3
Who is the most witty poster on topix? 5 hr zepforever 36
Whose the most likable long time poster on topix? 7 hr smilemjj 42
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Michael Jackson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••