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.
#11910 Jul 17, 2013
Right on ,Victor,with your expansive info on the RIAA and it's shafting of Elvis.I also think that the RIAA is shafting Elvis in how they've tabulated their certifications as well.For example,Elvis Gospel album `His Hand in Mine' is credited as a platinum album,but I think this album easily exceeds 2 million or more,and sadly I think they have done this to MANY of Elvis's albums and singles and EP'S,this all adds up to one inescapable conclusion,the people that run these organizations are all 60's counterculture influenced jerks who want to continue to falsely prop up THEIR musical heroes,The Beatles,and will continue to manipulate their rules and their sales numbers to KEEP them there,PERIOD,BUT THEY'RE NOT FOOLING US ELVIS FANS,peace out.
#11911 Jul 17, 2013
Could it be that Elvis sold so many millions of records that RIAA lost track or can't count be cause nobody rightfully knows because after so many millions they lost count of how many? We all know he outsold everyone including the Beatles but the Beatles were around for 8 years. Elvis was out 6 years befores the Beatles and 7 years after the Beatles broke up.It doesn't matter because he is the King and he is number one in sales so what if RIAA or whoever doesn't give him credit because his fans give him all the credit in the World.He's probably been on more magazine covers than Marilyn Monroe.The Beatles don't need propping up Rick they have enough merit of their own.
#11920 Jul 18, 2013
The RIAA was established in 1958. They neglect to credit Elvis for his biggest sellers on all formats for the years 1956-1957. I'll start with the hit singles:
#1 for 8 weeks
"I Want You, I Need You, I Love You"
#1 for 1 week
"Don't Be Cruel" b/w "Hound Dog"
#1 for 11 weeks
"Love Me Tender"
#1 for 5 weeks
#1 for 3 weeks
"All Shook Up"
#1 for 9 weeks
(let me be your) "Teddy Bear"
#1 for 7 weeks
#1 for 7 weeks
#11921 Jul 18, 2013
Well dadburn that RIAA any how what's wrong with them dang people.They never gave me any credit for selling 1000 copies of Boozing with my baby or Whiskey hobo lulaby.
#11922 Jul 18, 2013
Elvis Pop Albums/Extended Plays 1956-1957
#1 for 10 weeks
#1 for 5 weeks
"Peace In The Valley" (EP).....#3
"Loving You" vol 1 (EP)
"1 for 5 weeks
#1 for 10 weeks
"Loving You" vol 2 (EP).....#4
"Just For You" (EP)
#2 for 1 week
"Jailhouse Rock" (EP)
#1 for 28 weeks
"Elvis" vol 1 (EP)
#1 for 2 weeks
"Elvis Christmas Album"
#1 for 4 weeks
"Elvis Sings Christmas Songs (EP)
#1 for 2 weeks
"Love Me Tender" (EP).......#9
"Elvis Presley" (double extended play)......#9
"Elvis Presley" (EP).....#6
"Heartbreak Hotel" (EP)......#5
"The Real Elvis" (EP)......#5
#11923 Jul 18, 2013
Elvis's first two years is like another top selling artist completely ignored by the RIAA because they had their rules that certainly benefits The Beatles. However, even with the massive cut down of Elvis's achievements, he is only slightly behind The Beatles in overall sales. In reality, The Beatles are like a jet plane that is flying over the clouds when Elvis is across the universe in another obit somewhere. Of course, you do not care that they cut Elvis down to build up The Beatles. If the shoe were on the other foot though, Beatles fans would be furious.
#11924 Jul 18, 2013
#11925 Jul 18, 2013
Let us cut out The Beatles first two years like they never existed, shall we?
Beatle Albums 1964-1965
"Introducing The Beatles" (US only)
"The Beatles Story" (US only)
"With The Beatles"
"The Beatles Second Album" (US only)
"A Hard Day's Night"
"Something New" (US only)
"Beatles For Sale"
"Beatles '65" (US only)
"Beatles VI" (US only)
"Yesterday And Today" (US only)
"Please Please Me"
"I Want To Hold Your Hand"
"Can't Buy Me Love"
"A Hard Day's Night"
"I Feel Fine"
"She's A Woman"
"Eight Days A Week"
"Ticket To Ride"
"We Can Work It Out"
Since: Jun 13
#11926 Jul 18, 2013
Also when Elvis first began charting records in the fall of 1955 (started charted on the country charts), the Billboard Hot 100 wasn't the main pop chart, it was once called the Top 100. Elvis ruled that chart before it changed to the Hot 100 but his Hot 100 numbers are still enormous. And yeah the RIAA did fail in certifying pre-1958 singles. Elvis wasn't slacking between December 1955 and August 1958.
#11927 Jul 18, 2013
You and Rick keep saying the Beatles got built up. Well they didn't need that because like I told Rick they had enough of their own merits. They sold like hot cakes and even in 1995 when Anthology came out the were still selling well. You guys keep whinning about how Elvis didn't get all of his records sells counted. So what he was still King and because he was out much longer he out sold everybody just except that and stop the whinning PLEASE! Elvis and The Beatles made plenty of money and have millions of fans and that's what matters not miss counted record sales.I don't care about how many records the Beatles sold or didn't sale because I can still buy them if I want just like Elvis you can still buy his music to enjoy.So what if RIAA is acurate.
#11928 Jul 18, 2013
#11929 Jul 18, 2013
Not a fair comment.
The RIAA didn't start until 1958, so naturally Elvis' 1956-58 sales won't be included.
Why should they?
How far back would you want them to go with other artists? All the way back to the 40s for Sinatra? The 30s for Bing Crosby? The 20s for Caruso?
Additionally, the criticism of the RIAA is also misplaced as they're working bloody hard to retabulate the rest of Elvis' sales - you only need to look at the regular amounts of updates and new awards that filter through. Sales details need to be PROVEN though before any new awards and records can be offered. This takes time.
The charge of bias against Elvis by the RIAA is quite simply unfounded, as the RIAA rules and regulations apply to ALL artists and their sales.
#11931 Jul 18, 2013
And you know what's coming next,it's about the geniuses who run ROLLING STONE and their brilliant decision to put that young creep responsible for the Boston marathon bombings ON THE COVER,GIMME A BREAK.The people that run this joke of a magazine should be ashamed of themselves,this sicko was responsible for the deaths of three people[including a young boy]and was responsible for injuring and maming many others[including a beautiful young woman who was a dancer,who lost a leg],the editor of this magazine,a 60's counterculture asshole who looks like a dishonorable dischargee of The Betty ford Clinic,SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY,peace out.
#11932 Jul 18, 2013
The way I look at it is The Beatles US albums were like Elvis's extended plays but they still sold.
(basically rearranged material of the UK releases)
Imagine the RIAA doing the same thing to The Beatles as they are currently doing to Elvis. Even so, Elvis still managed to be right behind The Beatles without getting his proper credits that should be given. It is pure fabrication and ignorance that puts The Beatles over the top when in fact, it is Elvis. He remains the biggest selling artist of all time but what is written and claimed for The Beatles is quite unfair to loyal Elvis fans that have been buying Elvis recordings for almost sixty years. It is grave disservice and an insult by the recording industry, the RIAA, the sixties culture media to Elvis fans that know better. We have the music and bought it from vinyl LP's, 8 track, cassette and finally, compact disc.
#11933 Jul 18, 2013
I agree Rick that was bad taste and stupid to do that.
#11934 Jul 18, 2013
Yep the Beatles are a close second to Elvis. But not bad for a group that weren't movie stars and only together for less than 10 years.Had the Beatles came out in 1958 and stayed together until 1977 maybe they would be on top
#11935 Jul 18, 2013
Because I'm sick of Elvis not being credited for his sales that we all know he achieved. Why should The Beatles get placed at number one based on default? It might not matter to you but it is a total insult to me as an Elvis fan.
#11936 Jul 18, 2013
And it doesn't affect other artists because the biggest sellers of the previous generation were not in the rock era. Elvis was without a doubt, the biggest artist of the fifties. The RIAA might have started in 1958 but Elvis still sold countless millions of records in 1956-1957. He was a phenomenon and still is. Just because the current standards and the billboard chart, which they set up didn't exist, did not mean Elvis did not sell at all. Obviously, he did. They should give him back his first two years. They don't, because they want The Beatles on top. They are working for the sixties curture media and one hand feeds the other. It is all overblown hype to keep the sixties ideals in the headlines. The RIAA believes that The Beatles started it all and that they need to be pushed onto this new generation to keep it going...
#11937 Jul 18, 2013
Well whatever but Elvis was still King and because he was Around so long he outsold everyone. I am not insulted if someone says the Beatles were overrated because nobody has topped the Beatles in Popularity as a group. And nobody has topped Elvis as a single artist.I hate it when the TV claims Slim Whitman outsold the Beatles it was a joke to me.
#11938 Jul 18, 2013
You miss my point ... if the RIAA goes back to include 1956-57 in Elvis' sales, then they're going to have to go back for EVERY artist all the way to the 1920s.
There is no bias against Elvis by the RIAA, as the rules apply to all performers and their sales.
Add your comments below
|The Rise and Fall of Phil Spector (Apr '09)||Jun '17||SLICK PUTZ PENCE||2|
|Mourners pay tribute to Judge Barron (Dec '08)||May '17||In the know||14|
|The worst idea the Beatles ever had||May '17||Declining Popularity||1|
|Satellite radio's SiriusXM is debuting Beatles ...||May '17||Declining Popularity||2|
|The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin (Sep '11)||May '17||Declining Popularity||102|
|Is Ringo's Nose bigger than Mick Jagger's Lips? (Oct '07)||May '17||Atsa Lotsa Teefs||28|
|Imagine if John Lennon was not "neutralized" by...||Apr '17||justicewell||1|
Find what you want!
Search The Beatles Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC