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 (Page 525)

Showing posts 10,481 - 10,500 of12,741
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10862
Apr 8, 2013
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mama Jacky thinks a new trial will give dead Wacko more publicity.
The clown killed himself and everybody knows it.
A concert promoter did not cause his hopeless drug addiction.
Wacko will never rebound no matter how many people she blames.
40 billion?
It is hard to believe how delusional the greedy Jacksons are.
Yeah they all sound like a dysfunctional family. They should be called the Jiveasses especially naming a kid Tito what kind of Jiveass name is that? His kids will always be mixed up and blanket is jiveass too. Who would call their kid Blanket only Jacko the powdered clown.hEEE hEEEE

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10863
Apr 8, 2013
 
RICK wrote:
I agree with you on those `69 Memphis sessions,some of the absolute finest music Elvis ever made,and these were the sessions where Elvis showed his great ability to perform CONTEMPORARY music,and absolutely shocked the 60's counterculture music media of that time WHO HAD ALREADY WRITTEN HIM OFF.These sessions were Elvis's way of showing these people that he was The King and he still had plenty of gas left in the ol' musical tank,and career wise,Elvis never looked back and rode this great musical wave to the very end,peace out.
"Elvis In Memphis" was made when Elvis was inspired to excellence.

His return to live performing followed.

I love "That's The Way It Is" that Elvis recorded in 1970.

A whole different style.

Elvis was the ultimate artist. He could do anything and do it well.

I just got the import "Southern Gypsy Magic" in...

(a concert from 7-23-75 with bonus tracks)

My friend called and said it's incredible.

It is supposed to have come from another source tape of Asheville.

I'm looking forward to listening to it on headphones.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10864
Apr 8, 2013
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah they all sound like a dysfunctional family. They should be called the Jiveasses especially naming a kid Tito what kind of Jiveass name is that? His kids will always be mixed up and blanket is jiveass too. Who would call their kid Blanket only Jacko the powdered clown.hEEE hEEEE
It is quite pathetic what Mama Jacky is doing to Wacko.

The concert promoter is surely going to fight back with more dirt.

Jacko's kids are not really his but everything was willed to them.

Mama Jacky wants more for herself because Wacko left her in control.
King Elvis

Bass Hill, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10865
Apr 8, 2013
 
RICK wrote:
I agree with you on those `69 Memphis sessions,some of the absolute finest music Elvis ever made,and these were the sessions where Elvis showed his great ability to perform CONTEMPORARY music,and absolutely shocked the 60's counterculture music media of that time WHO HAD ALREADY WRITTEN HIM OFF.These sessions were Elvis's way of showing these people that he was The King and he still had plenty of gas left in the ol' musical tank,and career wise,Elvis never looked back and rode this great musical wave to the very end,peace out.
Four points there, Dick.

1. He was right to have been written off by 1967. It was a fact that he wasn't busting the charts as he should have been.

2. Your so-called counterculture media was unanimous in its praise for the Comeback Special and the subsequent '69 releases.

3. Elvis "never looked back and rode this musical great wave to the very end"? No No.1 hits from '70 on is hardly a wave. Where to begin with THAT statement.

4. You STILL haven't provided is with any examples - no, not even one - of the so-called sixties media bias against Elvis. Oh well.
Lee

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10866
Apr 9, 2013
 
King Elvis wrote:
<quoted text>
Four points there, Dick.
1. He was right to have been written off by 1967. It was a fact that he wasn't busting the charts as he should have been.
2. Your so-called counterculture media was unanimous in its praise for the Comeback Special and the subsequent '69 releases.
3. Elvis "never looked back and rode this musical great wave to the very end"? No No.1 hits from '70 on is hardly a wave. Where to begin with THAT statement.
4. You STILL haven't provided is with any examples - no, not even one - of the so-called sixties media bias against Elvis. Oh well.
First of all, you have to define exactly who the "60s counterculture" is. That is almost impossible.

Since he died, almost no one has treated Elvis fairly. It has become almost a fad to take swipes at him. It is ALMOST considered "out of it" to say anything good about him without also adding a put down of some kind.

Wasn't it People magazine who voted him(only the staff voted)him the most "over rated" star? I am not sure it was people, but some msjor magazine. Of course they did not ask the readers.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10867
Apr 9, 2013
 
Sure, 1966-1967 was not a good period for Elvis.

But then again, he was stuck under movie contracts.

The material did slowly improve through...

Besides, the culture was changing rapidly.

It was all about Elvis finally getting serious.

Still, Elvis did do some great songs:

"Please Don't Stop Loving Me"
"All That I Am"
"Long Legged Girl" (with a short dress on)
"Big Boss Man"
"Guitar Man"
"High Heel Sneakers"
"US Male"
"Let Yourself Go"
"A Little Less Conversation"
"Almost In Love"

Two songs on the list were later #1 hits!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10869
Apr 9, 2013
 
Elmer Jackson wrote:
<quoted text>1965 -67 wasn't very good for Elmer. I was just a young hobo coping with hard times. Then I got to drinking and singing and things somehow got better.I met up with Boxcar Willie and he inspired me. I once saw Willy Nelson singing Whiskey River and I knew I had a future in drinking and singing.I wrote me first song Jim Beam is a friend of mine.The other hobos heard it and said hell Elmer keep on singing because Boxcar Willie is getting old and will die one day.
Elvis was really busy doing his films out in Hollywood at that time and the music done for those soundtracks did not reflect what was going on in the music industry at that time. I know that Elvis knew that most of the material wasn't up to par and didn't have to be because all the movies he made, garnered healthy profits. Anyway, there were still great Elvis performances scattered through out his sixties films. What Elvis needed was a serious studio album that would put him back on the map. The live television special was a step in the right direction, followed by the American studios sessions in 1969. After all, it was only a couple years. Compare that to 43 years of sappy albums from Paul McCartney, which the sixties culture chooses to not criticize because he was a Beatle. In my view, Elvis's seventies albums were great and showed him to be a man who could do many different types of styles and performances.
Poppa Jivebones

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10870
Apr 9, 2013
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
Elvis was really busy doing his films out in Hollywood at that time and the music done for those soundtracks did not reflect what was going on in the music industry at that time. I know that Elvis knew that most of the material wasn't up to par and didn't have to be because all the movies he made, garnered healthy profits. Anyway, there were still great Elvis performances scattered through out his sixties films. What Elvis needed was a serious studio album that would put him back on the map. The live television special was a step in the right direction, followed by the American studios sessions in 1969. After all, it was only a couple years. Compare that to 43 years of sappy albums from Paul McCartney, which the sixties culture chooses to not criticize because he was a Beatle. In my view, Elvis's seventies albums were great and showed him to be a man who could do many different types of styles and performances.
That may be so but still Paul did write and play on all of his songs. Elvis had to choose material and pay royalties to the artist whose songs he used.I know Paul has wrote some sappy duds but in the 43 years he wrote some excellant tunes as well.John Lennon's song were deeper but Paul's did sell better and were more pop oriented I guess. Give Paul credit he did write some songs that were damn good. Not all of his songs were sappy.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10871
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

You show your complete ignorance and stupidity once again,kangaroo banger,dumber than the day is long.You at least agree with me that he was written off,EPIC FAIL NO 1.NO.2 Sure he was praised for the comeback special and the `69 releases,but his musical career overall doesn't connect with their 60's counterculture sensibilities,Elvis didn't follow their agenda,either socially OR MUSICALLY either,and as a result they STILL TO THIS DAY are DIMISSIVE of him AND HIS CAREER,EPIC FAIL NO.2.NO 3.There is a great paradox between his chart performance AND HIS RECORD SALES,Elvis wasn't scoring big no.1 hits on the charts,BUT HIS ALBUM AND SINGLE SALES WERE STILL MASSIVE IN THE 70'S,THE TV ALBUMS,THE BUDGET RELEASES,AND SINGLES WERE SELLING VERY WELL DURING THIS PERIOD,AND TO ME THAT IS THE TRUE REFLECTION OF AN ARTIST'S POPULARITY,NOT THE SO CALLED CHARTS,SO ELVIS WAS IN FACT RIDING A BIG,POPULAR MUSICAL WAVE,AS I SAID,EPIC FAIL NO 3.,AND I'VE GIVEN MANY EXAMPLES OF MEDIA BIAS,TAKE A READING REFRESHER COURSE,PECKER BREATH,peace out.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10872
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text>That may be so but still Paul did write and play on all of his songs. Elvis had to choose material and pay royalties to the artist whose songs he used.I know Paul has wrote some sappy duds but in the 43 years he wrote some excellant tunes as well.John Lennon's song were deeper but Paul's did sell better and were more pop oriented I guess. Give Paul credit he did write some songs that were damn good. Not all of his songs were sappy.
I know that Paul McCartney wrote a few classics, Bubba.

I just think John Lennon wrote way better material.

He was a better vocalist and musician than McCartney also.

Take John Lennon's last sessions in 1980 for example...

Both "Double Fantasy" and "Milk And Honey"

John's solo stuff without Yoko was flawless.

Most of Wings and Paul's solo stuff had a lot of filler tracks.

"Pipes Of Peace" was an dreadful album, Bubba.

Had John Lennon lived, I doubt he'd have to sing old Beatle tunes.

I'm not putting McCartney down, I just think he was disappointing.

And for Elvis not writing songs, he never had to.

He never claimed to be a songwriter. He was doing other things.

Elvis recorded and did movies, specials and live concerts.

It was because he was a musical personality that put out albums.

He really didn't have time to sit and try to write his own songs.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10873
Apr 9, 2013
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that Paul McCartney wrote a few classics, Bubba.
I just think John Lennon wrote way better material.
He was a better vocalist and musician than McCartney also.
Take John Lennon's last sessions in 1980 for example...
Both "Double Fantasy" and "Milk And Honey"
John's solo stuff without Yoko was flawless.
Most of Wings and Paul's solo stuff had a lot of filler tracks.
"Pipes Of Peace" was an dreadful album, Bubba.
Had John Lennon lived, I doubt he'd have to sing old Beatle tunes.
I'm not putting McCartney down, I just think he was disappointing.
And for Elvis not writing songs, he never had to.
He never claimed to be a songwriter. He was doing other things.
Elvis recorded and did movies, specials and live concerts.
It was because he was a musical personality that put out albums.
He really didn't have time to sit and try to write his own songs.
Back to the Egg was a crappy album for Mccartney same with Red Rose Speedway. He has good tunes but I agree his albums have some lame filler songs on them that's why I quit buying his albums.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10874
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Back to the Egg was a crappy album for Mccartney same with Red Rose Speedway. He has good tunes but I agree his albums have some lame filler songs on them that's why I quit buying his albums.
In The Beatles, the one that actually wrote the song, sang lead.

I can instantly tell a McCartney lyric from a John Lennon one.

And George Harrison wrote some fantastic Beatle songs.

Nothing against McCartney but John was the better songwriter.

Paul McCartney played it safe with Wings and his solo albums.

It may have worked for him in the 70's.

But I find Paul McCartney a little too sappy for my taste.

That doesn't mean that he didn't ever write a decent tune.

Paul sounded like Kermit the frog at times.

George Harrison did very well playing with other musicians.

It is just opinions based on what all four of them put out.

1. John Lennon
2. George Harrison
3. Ringo Starr
4. Paul McCartney

But for some reason the media gives Paul McCartney the edge.

It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10875
Apr 9, 2013
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
In The Beatles, the one that actually wrote the song, sang lead.
I can instantly tell a McCartney lyric from a John Lennon one.
And George Harrison wrote some fantastic Beatle songs.
Nothing against McCartney but John was the better songwriter.
Paul McCartney played it safe with Wings and his solo albums.
It may have worked for him in the 70's.
But I find Paul McCartney a little too sappy for my taste.
That doesn't mean that he didn't ever write a decent tune.
Paul sounded like Kermit the frog at times.
George Harrison did very well playing with other musicians.
It is just opinions based on what all four of them put out.
1. John Lennon
2. George Harrison
3. Ringo Starr
4. Paul McCartney
But for some reason the media gives Paul McCartney the edge.
It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.
Flaming Pie was the last McCartney album I bought. I liked a lot of his stuff around 1975 1977 but later in the 80's he wrote some sappy songs I think he is better when he teams up with Steve Miller or Elvis Costello.Mccartney and Stevie Wonder were ok together.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10876
Apr 9, 2013
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Flaming Pie was the last McCartney album I bought. I liked a lot of his stuff around 1975 1977 but later in the 80's he wrote some sappy songs I think he is better when he teams up with Steve Miller or Elvis Costello.Mccartney and Stevie Wonder were ok together.
I have "Tug Of War" on vinyl LP. It had its moments. A lot of people would say that his duet with Stevie Wonder on "Ebony And Ivory" was pretty sappy but Paul was sincere and made it work. "Pipes Of Peace" had his duet with Michael Jackson "Say, Say, Say" and not much else. I don't care for Elvis Costello that much and lost interest in Paul McCartney's solo work. The Beatles outtake imports is what I go for because all four of them made the creative process historic in the different ways that they were working on the songs. In a few cases, you hear some fantastic stuff that they left out. It makes The Beatles worth listening to.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10877
Apr 9, 2013
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have "Tug Of War" on vinyl LP. It had its moments. A lot of people would say that his duet with Stevie Wonder on "Ebony And Ivory" was pretty sappy but Paul was sincere and made it work. "Pipes Of Peace" had his duet with Michael Jackson "Say, Say, Say" and not much else. I don't care for Elvis Costello that much and lost interest in Paul McCartney's solo work. The Beatles outtake imports is what I go for because all four of them made the creative process historic in the different ways that they were working on the songs. In a few cases, you hear some fantastic stuff that they left out. It makes The Beatles worth listening to.
yes the four together were magic but solo Mccartney just isn't the same.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10878
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Paul should do like John Fogerty and consider doing an album of duets with Bob Seger and people like that. Fogerty and Mccartney might be good together.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10880
Apr 10, 2013
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>yes the four together were magic but solo Mccartney just isn't the same.
Since Paul and John were the main songwriters, they had bigger egos.

George was the musician that desired to play with other artists.

And Ringo was the solid drummer that happily played along with them.

Paul wanted control of the band.

John wanted radical messages and change.

George wanted his songs to be heard and wanted to do other things.

Ringo was happy being a Beatle and tried his hand acting on film.

Four different personalities that were bound to split.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10881
Apr 10, 2013
 
Bubba wrote:
Paul should do like John Fogerty and consider doing an album of duets with Bob Seger and people like that. Fogerty and Mccartney might be good together.
I think Paul McCartney should really consider retiring, Bubba.

Both John Fogerty and Bob Seger aren't doing anything new.

And their best work is behind them.

There comes a time when people should just know when to give it up.

What Beatle fans should want is more vault material releases.

Like what they are doing with Jimi Hendrix.

I think Beatle fans would appreciate that much more.

Paul McCartney's voice is shot.

Mick Jagger can still pull off a decent new vocal.

But even so, The Rolling Stones are pathetic looking.

They are just way too old now.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10882
Apr 10, 2013
 
I agree with you on Mccartney's singing,Octo,he did sing like kermit the frog,there is a definite sappy quality to his SOUND as a vocalist,he should definitely consider a career making music for kids,AND THAT'S ALL.And as for some of his albums,such as `Flaming Pie',that one should have been renamed`Flaming Pile of Rhino Poop',a more apt title,don't you think,Octopus Brain.I like The Beatles for two reasons,John Lennon and George Harrison,AND THAT'S ALL,McFartney is swell headed loudmouth whose solo work,for the most part,was embarrassing,and Ringo didn't do a whole lot as a contributor to the group's music,so I'm neutral on him,peace out.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10883
Apr 10, 2013
 
RICK wrote:
I agree with you on Mccartney's singing,Octo,he did sing like kermit the frog,there is a definite sappy quality to his SOUND as a vocalist,he should definitely consider a career making music for kids,AND THAT'S ALL.And as for some of his albums,such as `Flaming Pie',that one should have been renamed`Flaming Pile of Rhino Poop',a more apt title,don't you think,Octopus Brain.I like The Beatles for two reasons,John Lennon and George Harrison,AND THAT'S ALL,McFartney is swell headed loudmouth whose solo work,for the most part,was embarrassing,and Ringo didn't do a whole lot as a contributor to the group's music,so I'm neutral on him,peace out.
What Beatle fans fail to realize is that if they rejected Wings and Paul McCartney's seventies pop, The Beatles probably would have reunited at some point. The sixties culture has been praising Paul for decades and he still thinks he was the "star" of The Beatles. Of course, he was going to have an inflated ego. I've heard that "Flaming Pie" was Paul McCartney's return to a rock sound but can not comment on it because I haven't listened to the album. I did hear "Off The Ground" years ago and thought it wasn't strong enough to even bother listening to a second time. Even though Paul has a swelled head, I still believe he is a decent person that cares about different causes to help people and desires to protect the rights of animals. Certainly not a bad legacy and one that should be admired. Still, his solo work was a complete waste of talent when he could've continued with The Beatles as a unit with the other three inspiring him.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,481 - 10,500 of12,741
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the The Beatles Forum right now

Search the The Beatles Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Guitarist says McCartney hit 'crazy' high notes... Jul 19 Jimbo 1
Today in Rock: July 14 Jul 14 Will Dockery 1
The year after the Beatles met E Jul 12 Beedle Bug 111
Why do people hate Yoko Ono? (Sep '09) Jul 9 BeedleBug 281
Ringo turns 74 Jul 7 Greg 1
john lennon glasses Jul 6 skamilla 1
3 vip tickets for ringo starr july 13 san jose Jul 1 StarkeyTix 2
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••