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.

Octopus

Albany, NY

#12865 Oct 13, 2013
I've got my Elvis boots in the mail and listened to a few of them. Of the live audience recordings, the Detroit 1974 and the Tulsa 1976 concerts were not good sounding concerts at all. However, the other shows were excellent and certainly acceptable in performance and sound quality. One interesting show was "Hillbilly Cat Returns" which is much improved from the old boot, "When The Snow Is On The Roses" 8-24-70 MS. Great new source or remaster because my other copy was unlistenable. All the other concerts were of excellent sound quality from Las Vegas 1972-1973. I loved the extended 70's CD and both "Tiger Man Anthology volume 11 and 12" Of special note, volume 11 has a couple amazing studio outtakes that all Elvis fans should hear. "You'll Never Walk Alone" (take one) and an incredible, "You Don't Know Me" (take 18, movie version) Elvis sung them in a higher voice and "You Don't Know Me" is very bluesy, unlike the inferior master and horrible "Clambake" movie version. Overall, I am very pleased with what I've heard...
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12866 Oct 13, 2013
RICK wrote:
And the reason I go after Paul Mccartney is because I think this man is 2 faced.In public he pretends to be this nice guy,but I think behind the scenes this guy is pure hell on wheels,a REAL control freak,and I think he was also a factor in the breakup of The Beatles.Everyone blames Yoko Ono,but I think the BIGGER reason is John,George and Ringo got SICK of Mccartney and his attempts to be `the boss'of The Beatles,and by breaking up told Mccartney to take his rotten attitude and put it where the sun don't shine,and they did the RIGHT thing in my opinion,peace out.
You do have a point about McCartney being a control freak, especially before the break up of The Beatles but it was also a conflict of egos that involved other members of the band. They simply wanted to go in different directions and solo albums were the natural result. Yoko Ono was another factor entirely. She was what John Lennon wanted. Of course, it made it very difficult for them to jell as a band unit. George Harrison's songs did not get the same footing as Lennon/McCartney and they were bound to break up sooner or later. But I do not think I could blame it strictly on Paul. All four members The Beatles became dissatisfied. It became like a marriage that did not work anymore.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12867 Oct 13, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>FYI Rick, Paul was not the reason the Beatles broke up. On the contrary he was the reason they didn't break up sooner. He wrote most of their later hits to keep them relevant. And he was the main one who kept them working & together by coming up with new ideas.Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Let it Be & Abbey Road, were all his ideas. And so what if the guys a perfectionist, most gifted or talented people are. And please stop insulting him, it makes you sound petty & jealous.
And yet, on The Beatles Anthology in 1995, Elvis was attacked unfairly when Ringo was confronted about the outright lie that Elvis went to see Richard Nixon because he wanted them deported and other negative things said about Elvis during the program. It was a cheap shot. It is like saying that Paul supports child molesters because he once did a couple duets with Michael Jackson in the eighties. Elvis had nothing to do with Nixon's policies but some Beatle fans think he did because of what was put on the Anthology TV Special and later DVD set. Paul McCartney can be criticized. Do you think his ass is gold?
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12869 Oct 13, 2013
Maurice P Colgan wrote:
<quoted text>No it's made of the same material Elvis' is made of, but you all seem to think Elvis is beyond criticism.
No. I'm talking about unfair criticism.

Since Elvis never attacked The Beatles or any other artist, why the cheap shots?

It is pure jealousy because 36 years gone, Elvis still has his fans.

So, it is very small of the sixties cultural media to keep on telling the same falsehoods on Elvis that has been said for the past 36 years in order to further their agenda, which is selling the fake peace and love crap that The Beatles fed to the mass public but never lived up to. McCartney is a billionare that plays at a wealthy CEO's birthday party for a million bucks. How fake and phony is that?
Chris

United States

#12870 Oct 13, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, on The Beatles Anthology in 1995, Elvis was attacked unfairly when Ringo was confronted about the outright lie that Elvis went to see Richard Nixon because he wanted them deported and other negative things said about Elvis during the program. It was a cheap shot. It is like saying that Paul supports child molesters because he once did a couple duets with Michael Jackson in the eighties. Elvis had nothing to do with Nixon's policies but some Beatle fans think he did because of what was put on the Anthology TV Special and later DVD set. Paul McCartney can be criticized. Do you think his ass is gold?
I'm sorry that the Elvis thing was said on Anthology, but it was the only negative thing said about him on Anthology. The Beatles loved Elvis & you know that's the truth. Do I think McCartney is beyond criticism? Certainly not, but being critical & being insulting are two entirety different things. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine that Elvis was still alive, he would be somewhere around 87 if I'm correct. Now lets say he was still playing concerts & recording new music. Even if he was just a shell of his former self, fans like you would still go see him & buy his new music, because you are a true fan. And you certainly wouldn't tolerate anyone insulting him. I am a true Beatles fan, including their solo work. And just because someone doesn't like Paul doesn't mean they have to insult him.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#12871 Oct 13, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry that the Elvis thing was said on Anthology, but it was the only negative thing said about him on Anthology. The Beatles loved Elvis & you know that's the truth. Do I think McCartney is beyond criticism? Certainly not, but being critical & being insulting are two entirety different things. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine that Elvis was still alive, he would be somewhere around 87 if I'm correct. Now lets say he was still playing concerts & recording new music. Even if he was just a shell of his former self, fans like you would still go see him & buy his new music, because you are a true fan. And you certainly wouldn't tolerate anyone insulting him. I am a true Beatles fan, including their solo work. And just because someone doesn't like Paul doesn't mean they have to insult him.
Chris, there is a set of rules for Elvis fans, and a set of different rules for anyone else. They whinge and whine the moment anybody says anything negative, whether it is true or not....Yet, I over the years here have seen attacks and insults thrown at every artist from Bieber to Zappa, they absolutely fail to see that those fans think as much of their chosen idol as they do of elvis. Just simply mention another artist and there they are ready to show how incomparable that artist is to elvis. Most of them should start acting like adults instead of the 12 year old Bieber fans that they emulate. It suprises me just how many of them are ADULT males...Something wrong there buddy!!
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12874 Oct 14, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry that the Elvis thing was said on Anthology, but it was the only negative thing said about him on Anthology. The Beatles loved Elvis & you know that's the truth. Do I think McCartney is beyond criticism? Certainly not, but being critical & being insulting are two entirety different things. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine that Elvis was still alive, he would be somewhere around 87 if I'm correct. Now lets say he was still playing concerts & recording new music. Even if he was just a shell of his former self, fans like you would still go see him & buy his new music, because you are a true fan. And you certainly wouldn't tolerate anyone insulting him. I am a true Beatles fan, including their solo work. And just because someone doesn't like Paul doesn't mean they have to insult him.
And George also was on camera criticizing Elvis's MSG show in which he attended on June 9, 1972. It seems that he was disappointed because it wasn't a rock n roll type of concert. But what George failed to realize was that MSG was being recorded for the purpose of documenting Elvis's then current Las Vegas act in New York. Elvis already did the live rock n roll albums in 1969-1970 and by 1972, RCA wanted to put a new live album out. The songs had to be something that they hadn't released before. Had George followed Elvis around after MSG, he would've seen a different Elvis like in Chicago 6-17-72 with Elvis doing more rock and even a couple of bluesy numbers like "Reconsider Baby" and "My Babe" It was rude of George to say anything about Elvis on Anthology in 1995. He should've kept his mouth shut. Anyway, George Harrison was the wrong one to talk since by 1972, his solo albums were bland and void of any rock that I've ever heard. BTW, Elvis was only five years older than John Lennon. He would've been 78, not 87. You are thinking of Chuck Berry. Since Elvis fans have been insulted for 36 years by you obnoxious Beatle clowns, McCartney's sappy solo career is fair game.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12875 Oct 14, 2013
dolbyscat wrote:
<quoted text>Chris, there is a set of rules for Elvis fans, and a set of different rules for anyone else. They whinge and whine the moment anybody says anything negative, whether it is true or not....Yet, I over the years here have seen attacks and insults thrown at every artist from Bieber to Zappa, they absolutely fail to see that those fans think as much of their chosen idol as they do of elvis. Just simply mention another artist and there they are ready to show how incomparable that artist is to elvis. Most of them should start acting like adults instead of the 12 year old Bieber fans that they emulate. It suprises me just how many of them are ADULT males...Something wrong there buddy!!
But I do criticize Elvis on some things, which is basically allowing himself to be put in some of those terrible films he made with the most banal songs, especially in 1967. "Easy Come, Easy Go" "Clambake" and "Speedway" Nevertheless, Elvis did them and they were absolutely embarrassing. I am sure Rick would agree. But to Beatle nuts, they act if their little band was flawless. In reality, negative things can certainly be said about The Beatles also. They were a shitty live band but to Beatle floons, their concerts were the best live performances ever. Get what I'm saying?

Beatle nuts can dish it out but can not take it if is turned around against their precious band. That is just too bad, isn't it?
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12876 Oct 14, 2013
What do I,as an Elvis fan have to be jealous about in terms of Mccartney,Chris,I think the guy is a jerk,and you say that I'M petty and jealous,but Mccartney in the past has taken PLENTY of shots at Elvis,and in doing so,has been the one coming off as TRULY petty and jealous.Elvis had plenty of hits in the 50's,but is not a 50's Rock and Roll one trick pony,Elvis mass success has gone FAR past the 50's.Elvis unprecedented success makes it impossible for Paul to admire Elvis with the same condescending fashion he shows for,say,Buddy Holly,and ALL the other 50's Rock and Roll legend/has beens,THEY ARE NO THREAT TO HIM OR THE BEATLES IN TERMS OF POPULAR SUCCESS,BUT ELVIS IS A DIFFERENT STORY.And that's why he has put Elvis down,it's out of petty jealousy,Elvis has outsold and out gold and platinumed him AND The Beatles,and it sticks in his craw,THAT'S THE REAL AND SOLEMN TRUTH,peace out.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12877 Oct 14, 2013
And I agree with you 100 percent,Octo,Beatle fans have been taking shots at Elvis for years,but Elvis is somewhere in Heaven enjoying the last laugh.And Chris,Elvis will be confirmed as the greatest selling act in U.S history shortly by the RIAA.They're going to change their rules and finally acknowledge Elvis's mass and uncredited sales,and Elvis's people have FINALLY located the `lost'`77 to`79 sales documentation,so get ready for a slew of new and upgraded certifications,see`ya.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12880 Oct 14, 2013
And I do agree with you,Octo,about Elvis later films and soundtracks but this period only lasted 2 or 3 years,then The King got back on track big time,peace out.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#12881 Oct 14, 2013
RICK wrote:
,THAT'S THE REAL AND SOLEMN TRUTH.
According to the dumb-ass Rick...Who's opinion is worthless.
Chris

United States

#12882 Oct 14, 2013
RICK wrote:
What do I,as an Elvis fan have to be jealous about in terms of Mccartney,Chris,I think the guy is a jerk,and you say that I'M petty and jealous,but Mccartney in the past has taken PLENTY of shots at Elvis,and in doing so,has been the one coming off as TRULY petty and jealous.Elvis had plenty of hits in the 50's,but is not a 50's Rock and Roll one trick pony,Elvis mass success has gone FAR past the 50's.Elvis unprecedented success makes it impossible for Paul to admire Elvis with the same condescending fashion he shows for,say,Buddy Holly,and ALL the other 50's Rock and Roll legend/has beens,THEY ARE NO THREAT TO HIM OR THE BEATLES IN TERMS OF POPULAR SUCCESS,BUT ELVIS IS A DIFFERENT STORY.And that's why he has put Elvis down,it's out of petty jealousy,Elvis has outsold and out gold and platinumed him AND The Beatles,and it sticks in his craw,THAT'S THE REAL AND SOLEMN TRUTH,peace out.
OK first off I've never heard of Paul saying anything negative or insulting about Elvis. As far as success is concerned, the Beatles have nothing to be jealous about. They have over a billion in sales, just like Elvis. And as far as world records are concerned, the most successful songwriter in the history of recorded music, is none other than Mr Paul McCartney.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12883 Oct 14, 2013
RICK wrote:
And I do agree with you,Octo,about Elvis later films and soundtracks but this period only lasted 2 or 3 years,then The King got back on track big time,peace out.
Elvis movies were never made to be oscar winning masterpieces. Elvis accepted that and was disappointed that he wasn't given more to work with. But even so, not all Elvis movies were terrible. The sixties cultural media would love to put all of them in one basket but we all know that is not the case. Like Marilyn Monroe, Elvis was typecast in a successful formula that made a lot of money in the sixties. Elvis's worse films were only a fraction of the 33 that were released with their soundtracks. Take in account that Paul McCartney hasn't done a truly great album since The Beatles broke up. Even "Band On The Run" wasn't all that strong. So, I am sick of hearing Elvis being put down and certain people criticizing Elvis fans as having a bias. The Beatles had plenty of flaws also but you never hear them talked about. Since I do have sixty Beatle albums, including bootlegs...I can criticize some of their work. Not all of it was that great.
Chris

United States

#12884 Oct 14, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
And George also was on camera criticizing Elvis's MSG show in which he attended on June 9, 1972. It seems that he was disappointed because it wasn't a rock n roll type of concert. But what George failed to realize was that MSG was being recorded for the purpose of documenting Elvis's then current Las Vegas act in New York. Elvis already did the live rock n roll albums in 1969-1970 and by 1972, RCA wanted to put a new live album out. The songs had to be something that they hadn't released before. Had George followed Elvis around after MSG, he would've seen a different Elvis like in Chicago 6-17-72 with Elvis doing more rock and even a couple of bluesy numbers like "Reconsider Baby" and "My Babe" It was rude of George to say anything about Elvis on Anthology in 1995. He should've kept his mouth shut. Anyway, George Harrison was the wrong one to talk since by 1972, his solo albums were bland and void of any rock that I've ever heard. BTW, Elvis was only five years older than John Lennon. He would've been 78, not 87. You are thinking of Chuck Berry. Since Elvis fans have been insulted for 36 years by you obnoxious Beatle clowns, McCartney's sappy solo career is fair game.
OK I have watched Anthology at least 2 dozen times & I'm going to set the record straight. When George was saying how he wished Elvis would've played more of his old hits at the MSG concert, he wasn't insulting him, but simply stating a fact. Also, when George described his meeting Elvis backstage, he sounded like he was very humbled by the experience. Also as far as you & Rick are concerned, you can keep insulting the Beatles. But I won't stoop to your level & start insulting Elvis, because even though I'm not a big Elvis fan, I still respect him & what he accomplished. And any Beatles fan who doesn't recognize his importance to music & especially to the Beatles, is either not a real fan or ignorant of reality.
FOREVER MICHAEL

UK

#12885 Oct 14, 2013
Elvis is not the king.there is only one man good enough to be called the king and thats Michael Jackson.whos got the complete package
With looks being so cute.singer,daner,song writer
Producer actor film maker
Michaels such a smart genius.he can do anything
Prince of hearts,king of love polite kind caring
Wonderful Incredible sweet man
The greatest man entertainer showman of all time
The one and only king Michael Jackson
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12886 Oct 14, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>OK I have watched Anthology at least 2 dozen times & I'm going to set the record straight. When George was saying how he wished Elvis would've played more of his old hits at the MSG concert, he wasn't insulting him, but simply stating a fact. Also, when George described his meeting Elvis backstage, he sounded like he was very humbled by the experience. Also as far as you & Rick are concerned, you can keep insulting the Beatles. But I won't stoop to your level & start insulting Elvis, because even though I'm not a big Elvis fan, I still respect him & what he accomplished. And any Beatles fan who doesn't recognize his importance to music & especially to the Beatles, is either not a real fan or ignorant of reality.
I do not see any insults flown at The Beatles. I am just sick of the obnoxious attitude Beatle fans have on Elvis, like he means nothing because he did not suck up to the sixtes culture. How many years have Elvis fans heard about Elvis's drug abuse and weight gain? The same tired shit year after year. No one goes after George Harrison for dying from lung cancer from smoking cigarettes.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#12887 Oct 14, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>OK I have watched Anthology at least 2 dozen times & I'm going to set the record straight. When George was saying how he wished Elvis would've played more of his old hits at the MSG concert, he wasn't insulting him, but simply stating a fact. Also, when George described his meeting Elvis backstage, he sounded like he was very humbled by the experience. Also as far as you & Rick are concerned, you can keep insulting the Beatles. But I won't stoop to your level & start insulting Elvis, because even though I'm not a big Elvis fan, I still respect him & what he accomplished. And any Beatles fan who doesn't recognize his importance to music & especially to the Beatles, is either not a real fan or ignorant of reality.
I happen to have the MSG show that George attended and Elvis did plenty of his fifties hits. What George complained about was the back up singers, the Las Vegas glittery production that Elvis performed. George wanted Elvis to be Carl Perkins or something. But that wasn't where Elvis was at in 1972. Elvis changed. George Harrison changed and was no longer playing in his monkey grinder suits to "Love Me Do" or "Please Please Me" was he? So it was unfair of George to expect Elvis to go back, wasn't it? Elvis sang wonderful that night. His voice was strong and the band was tight. It was the best show of the MSG engagement.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#12888 Oct 14, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
No one goes after George Harrison for dying from lung cancer from smoking cigarettes.
Probably a good reason for that...Oh! maybe because he didn't die from lung cancer. Octopussy shows his ignorance once more.
Dennis Hauser

Peoria, IL

#12891 Oct 14, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>OK first off I've never heard of Paul saying anything negative or insulting about Elvis. As far as success is concerned, the Beatles have nothing to be jealous about. They have over a billion in sales, just like Elvis. And as far as world records are concerned, the most successful songwriter in the history of recorded music, is none other than Mr Paul McCartney.
Sir Paul left his' guitar pick at Elvis' grave and sang Elvis tunes during his' tour. Paul also bought Elvis' bass players' original bass. I
know Elvis went to Pres. Nixon for a narcotics badge(I guess abusing legal drugs was o.k.) and complained to the Pres. that the Fab 4 came across the pond and probably was a little jealous of them. Elvis met the boys in Calif. He could've snubbed them.
John Lennon said, before Elvis their was nobody. I like the saying, Before anyone did anything, Elvis did everything.
These artist are complicated people. Elvis got a narcotics badge and that's what killed him. John sang, give peace a chance and had peace sit ins and was killed. I think they all have their own demons. These artist, we will never see the likes of again.

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.

The Beatles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
For your eyes only (Feb '15) May 28 Little monster 42
The Beatles Are Overrated (Jul '09) May 25 Greg 1,079
News Michael Jackson: Your number one music icon (Aug '10) May '16 Spotted Wee 137
News Rihanna Ties Michael Jackson On The List Of Car... May '16 Burning Love 2
News You can't always get what you want, but maybe a... Apr '16 Amused Octopus 1
News Beatles Albums, Ranked Worst to Best (Jun '15) Apr '16 JJJ 2
News Paul McCartney's concert 'the heaviest show on ... Apr '16 King Prince 4
More from around the web