150 Best Selling Artists in the World!

Dec 6, 2008 Full story: talk.livedaily.com 12,846

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.

Full Story

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#12918 Oct 15, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a collector of mostly Elvis music because he is my favorite artist. I do not wear jumpsuits, I do not think he is still alive, I do not pray to him like a God. I am just an Elvis fan of long standing that enjoys listening to his music because it gives me pleasure. Why would I want to be negative on him like you are? You say that you like his music, right? You do not make any sense. I am not taking anything personally. I just do not understand why you are so negative on Elvis because he did not make music to make people miserable. So what is your point? I like many other artists so what exactly is your complaint?
I like his music as well....well not all of it...a whole lot of it was pretty lame, but there was a lot of good stuff in there. I'm not negative on Elvis, just on his dopey fans, I don't have any complaints thanks.
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12923 Oct 16, 2013
And I couldn't agree with you more,Octo,on Sir Paul Mcfartney,The Beatles' greatest songs were written by John Lennon,no doubt about it in mine and most people's minds.And saying that most of Elvis music is lame just shows how lame and ignorant YOU are,Betsy,you obviously don't have the vast musical knowledge that a person like Octopus Brain has.The vast majority of Elvis' music was fantastic,but don't take my word for it,I only have more than 500 Elvis records,that's all,see `ya
RICK

Midlothian, IL

#12924 Oct 16, 2013
And Elvis wouldn't be the most digitally streamed artist of the last decade if his music was `lame',dearie,your lack of intelligence shows more and more with each post,oh well,see'ya.
Maurice P Colgan

Abbotsford, Canada

#12925 Oct 16, 2013
RICK wrote:
,but don't take my word for it,
We won't, your opinions are worthless and devoid of fact...fool.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#12926 Oct 16, 2013
RICK wrote:
And I couldn't agree with you more,Octo,on Sir Paul Mcfartney,The Beatles' greatest songs were written by John Lennon,no doubt about it in mine and most people's minds.And saying that most of Elvis music is lame just shows how lame and ignorant YOU are,Betsy,you obviously don't have the vast musical knowledge that a person like Octopus Brain has.The vast majority of Elvis' music was fantastic,but don't take my word for it,I only have more than 500 Elvis records,that's all,see `ya
I tend to regard George Harrison as the greatest songwriter, of the Beatles. It's a shame John and Paul didn't let him put more of his work on the group's recordings.

“Elvis News Ireland”

Since: Sep 07

Swords, County Dublin.

#12927 Oct 16, 2013
Only my posts in blue are real. Otherwise dolbyscat the Troll is the culprit.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#12928 Oct 16, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to regard George Harrison as the greatest songwriter, of the Beatles. It's a shame John and Paul didn't let him put more of his work on the group's recordings.
For sure George penned some truly great songs.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12937 Oct 18, 2013
RICK wrote:
And I couldn't agree with you more,Octo,on Sir Paul Mcfartney,The Beatles' greatest songs were written by John Lennon,no doubt about it in mine and most people's minds.And saying that most of Elvis music is lame just shows how lame and ignorant YOU are,Betsy,you obviously don't have the vast musical knowledge that a person like Octopus Brain has.The vast majority of Elvis' music was fantastic,but don't take my word for it,I only have more than 500 Elvis records,that's all,see `ya
George Harrison did write some great Beatle songs but the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team always won out and most of George's songs were rejected by the band unit. Obviously, you have quite a massive Elvis collection yourself. I would say I have close to 3000 Elvis titles myself. How many fans can say that about any other artist except Elvis? If they were not good, why would I be still seeking them out? There are some songs by Elvis that I really do not care for but his track record is pretty high. I am sure there are Beatle fans that collect anything they can get their hands on also but the difference is that Elvis was a masterful live performer. And his studio outtakes are very surprising because they sometimes reveal superior performances that redeem a lot of the songs I never really cared for. Very exciting, even at this late date. I've met a few younger Elvis fans and they are impressed by my knowledge. Just because some people totally dismiss Elvis, they pretend to know Elvis based on a few hits that they might have heard, which is silly. The Beatles get respect and hype but have never once made a decent live recording. Elvis has and the proof is on the live bootlegs. However, they claim that their band did everything and made Elvis passe. That is definitely not true.
Chris

United States

#12940 Oct 18, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
George Harrison did write some great Beatle songs but the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team always won out and most of George's songs were rejected by the band unit. Obviously, you have quite a massive Elvis collection yourself. I would say I have close to 3000 Elvis titles myself. How many fans can say that about any other artist except Elvis? If they were not good, why would I be still seeking them out? There are some songs by Elvis that I really do not care for but his track record is pretty high. I am sure there are Beatle fans that collect anything they can get their hands on also but the difference is that Elvis was a masterful live performer. And his studio outtakes are very ysurprising because they sometimes reveal superior performances that redeem a lot of the songs I never really cared for. Very exciting, even at this late date. I've met a few younger Elvis fans and they are impressed by my knowledge. Just because some people totally dismiss Elvis, they pretend to know Elvis based on a few hits that they might have heard, which is silly. The Beatles get respect and hype but have never once made a decent live recording. Elvis has and the proof is on the live bootlegs. However, they claim that their band did everything and made Elvis passe. That is definitely not true.
You seem to like reminding us how bad the Beatles sounded live. But you seem to be ignoring their early live recordings or the Let it Be apple rooftop concert, in which they sounded great, because they could hear themselves. Put Elvis in front of 50,000 screaming fans, with only 100 watt amps, & he wouldn't have sounded too good either. Nobody could with those conditions. Remember, the Beatles were breaking new ground, because they were the first to play stadiums, & the technology wasn't quite their yet to accomidate those kind of conditions. I'll admit their were times when they could hear themselves & they still didn't give a good performance. Their could be many reasons for, they were probably just tired, they worked almost endlessly in the first 5 years of their career.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#12944 Oct 18, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
George Harrison did write some great Beatle songs but the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team always won out and most of George's songs were rejected by the band unit. Obviously, you have quite a massive Elvis collection yourself. I would say I have close to 3000 Elvis titles myself. How many fans can say that about any other artist except Elvis? If they were not good, why would I be still seeking them out? There are some songs by Elvis that I really do not care for but his track record is pretty high. I am sure there are Beatle fans that collect anything they can get their hands on also but the difference is that Elvis was a masterful live performer. And his studio outtakes are very surprising because they sometimes reveal superior performances that redeem a lot of the songs I never really cared for. Very exciting, even at this late date. I've met a few younger Elvis fans and they are impressed by my knowledge. Just because some people totally dismiss Elvis, they pretend to know Elvis based on a few hits that they might have heard, which is silly. The Beatles get respect and hype but have never once made a decent live recording. Elvis has and the proof is on the live bootlegs. However, they claim that their band did everything and made Elvis passe. That is definitely not true.
It's a shame George's songs were often kept off the recordings. It would have been interesting to see what direction the band took.

I am, by the way, impressed by your knowledge of Elvis's music. I have much older cousins who loved his music. I'd be curious to know what they think of your collection and information.

Ringo made some interesting comments, about the Beatles performing live. He said they became worse, as a live act, because they couldn't hear each other, onstage. He said he found himself watching their bums and heads moving, in order to follow along.
Chris

United States

#12945 Oct 18, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a shame George's songs were often kept off the recordings. It would have been interesting to see what direction the band took.
I am, by the way, impressed by your knowledge of Elvis's music. I have much older cousins who loved his music. I'd be curious to know what they think of your collection and information.
Ringo made some interesting comments, about the Beatles performing live. He said they became worse, as a live act, because they couldn't hear each other, onstage. He said he found himself watching their bums and heads moving, in order to follow along.
It really is too bad that more of George's songs weren't on the Beatles records. But the truth is that he just wasn't very good in the early days. He only had himself, whereas John & Paul had each other to work with. So it took him a little longer to get good at it. Although their is no excuse why some of his later compositions like Not Guilty, All Things Must Pass & Sour Milk Sea didn't end up on the White album or one of the others after that. Also, I'm not sure if he wrote them while the Beatles were still together, but My Sweet Lord & What Is Life would've fit nicely onto any of their last 3 albums.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12947 Oct 20, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to like reminding us how bad the Beatles sounded live. But you seem to be ignoring their early live recordings or the Let it Be apple rooftop concert, in which they sounded great, because they could hear themselves. Put Elvis in front of 50,000 screaming fans, with only 100 watt amps, & he wouldn't have sounded too good either. Nobody could with those conditions. Remember, the Beatles were breaking new ground, because they were the first to play stadiums, & the technology wasn't quite their yet to accomidate those kind of conditions. I'll admit their were times when they could hear themselves & they still didn't give a good performance. Their could be many reasons for, they were probably just tired, they worked almost endlessly in the first 5 years of their career.
The Beatles early live recordings are tinny and barely listenable. The rooftop performance was basically a rundown rehearsal of "Get Back" and a couple other songs done over and over again. Of course, I know of the Hollywood Bowl concerts recorded in August of 1964, August 1965 and know of their very quiet Japanese concerts in 1966. The Beatles still failed to stay in tune, fubbing their lyrics, guitars with feedback or missed notes and live songs they barely finished all the way through. And these were half hour performances of ten or eleven numbers. Using the excuse that they couldn't hear themselves, is just that. They were a horrible live band. Elvis played at the Houston Astrodome in early 1970 to nearly 50,000 fans for six sold out concerts and couldn't hear himself either but Elvis and his band were still professional. You Beatle floons are delusional and obviously think that they could do no wrong. They were far from perfect and deserve criticism.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12948 Oct 20, 2013
Besides, I have some early Rolling Stones live performances in which their audience were screaming through out the whole thing and The Stones still played well. London, March 1964 and again in Paris April 1965. And these are soundboard recordngs collected with unreleased studio tracks with Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones in May 1964. It is the CD bootleg, "Raw Power" Of course, then you have Bob Dylan's legendary plugged in show at Newport, 1965. Both The Stones and Dylan blow The Beatles away as live acts.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12949 Oct 20, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a shame George's songs were often kept off the recordings. It would have been interesting to see what direction the band took.
I am, by the way, impressed by your knowledge of Elvis's music. I have much older cousins who loved his music. I'd be curious to know what they think of your collection and information.
Ringo made some interesting comments, about the Beatles performing live. He said they became worse, as a live act, because they couldn't hear each other, onstage. He said he found himself watching their bums and heads moving, in order to follow along.
Yeah, George Harrison was sometimes treated very badly by Paul McCartney when it came to playing guitar on something Paul had written. Both Lennon and McCartney gave George very little room to get his songs on the albums. A shame because George wrote some great material. My favorite unrelased Harrison track is "Sour Milk Sea" that would have been a strong track for "The White Album"

I've been collecting Elvis for years and his unreleased music is almost always better than what was released as the masters.
Chris

United States

#12950 Oct 20, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
The Beatles early live recordings are tinny and barely listenable. The rooftop performance was basically a rundown rehearsal of "Get Back" and a couple other songs done over and over again. Of course, I know of the Hollywood Bowl concerts recorded in August of 1964, August 1965 and know of their very quiet Japanese concerts in 1966. The Beatles still failed to stay in tune, fubbing their lyrics, guitars with feedback or missed notes and live songs they barely finished all the way through. And these were half hour performances of ten or eleven numbers. Using the excuse that they couldn't hear themselves, is just that. They were a horrible live band. Elvis played at the Houston Astrodome in early 1970 to nearly 50,000 fans for six sold out concerts and couldn't hear himself either but Elvis and his band were still professional. You Beatle floons are delusional and obviously think that they could do no wrong. They were far from perfect and deserve criticism.
I'm not trying to make excuses for them, they themselves have said that their were many times they couldn't hear themselves. As far as their early live recordings are concerned, the sound quality may not be good, but you can still tell that were a very tight unit. And comparing them to the Stones is ludicrous, because the only other person to experience the kind of hysteria the Beatles experienced was Elvis. Like I said, their were times when they could hear themselves, and they still gave a sloppy or lazy performance. From 62-66 the Beatles worked almost constantly. So I think they deserve a little leeway.
Chris

United States

#12951 Oct 20, 2013
Octo, FYI the Apple rooftop concert was a live performance & not a rehearsal. Also, another example of them sounding good is their BBC recordings. In case you don't realize it, those are live performances & they all sound good. Also, many of their live TV performances also sound pretty good.
Chris

United States

#12952 Oct 20, 2013
Oops sorry I posted that twice.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12953 Oct 20, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not trying to make excuses for them, they themselves have said that their were many times they couldn't hear themselves. As far as their early live recordings are concerned, the sound quality may not be good, but you can still tell that were a very tight unit. And comparing them to the Stones is ludicrous, because the only other person to experience the kind of hysteria the Beatles experienced was Elvis. Like I said, their were times when they could hear themselves, and they still gave a sloppy or lazy performance. From 62-66 the Beatles worked almost constantly. So I think they deserve a little leeway.
In the excellect DVD release, "Crossfire Hurricane" The Rolling Stones experienced riots at some of their early concerts. That wasn't hysteria? The footage is on the DVD. The Stones played remarkably well and in my opinion, very tight. I am not sure why Epstein did not make sure The Beatles did not get the proper sound quality for their live performances since they were the biggest band in the world at the time. They didn't seem to bother putting money into their shows because the fans screamed through them anyway. I would've been disappointed if I went to a concert and couldn't hear anything. Besides, Jerry Lee Lewis made one of the greatest live albums ever recorded at The Star Club in Hamburg, Germany in April, 1964. How they got that soundboard to sound so amazingly good so early in the sixties is anyone's guess. And I bought it as a used CD. It definitely could be done.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12954 Oct 20, 2013
Chris wrote:
Octo, FYI the Apple rooftop concert was a live performance & not a rehearsal. Also, another example of them sounding good is their BBC recordings. In case you don't realize it, those are live performances & they all sound good. Also, many of their live TV performances also sound pretty good.
To me, the rooftop performance is a rehearsal. I have the bootleg.

I also have "Live At The BBC" which I picked up as a used CD in the mid 90's. The sound quality is horrible but I got to admit, the Led Zeppelin "BBC Sessions" was worse.

The TV performances by The Beatles do sound better but sometimes they mimed through their studio recordings or re recorded them in the studio before they were broadcast. That is what I've read anyway.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#12955 Oct 20, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
In the excellect DVD release, "Crossfire Hurricane" The Rolling Stones experienced riots at some of their early concerts. That wasn't hysteria? The footage is on the DVD. The Stones played remarkably well and in my opinion, very tight. I am not sure why Epstein did not make sure The Beatles did not get the proper sound quality for their live performances since they were the biggest band in the world at the time. They didn't seem to bother putting money into their shows because the fans screamed through them anyway. I would've been disappointed if I went to a concert and couldn't hear anything. Besides, Jerry Lee Lewis made one of the greatest live albums ever recorded at The Star Club in Hamburg, Germany in April, 1964. How they got that soundboard to sound so amazingly good so early in the sixties is anyone's guess. And I bought it as a used CD. It definitely could be done.
The Beatles get proper sound quality for their live performances...

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
Katy Perry's 'Dark Horse' Gallops to No. 1 On H... (Jan '14) Jan 25 TheAfroHedgehog 6
Paul McCartney's 'Out There!' shows are hot, ho... Jan 25 TheAfroHedgehog 2
The year after the Beatles met E (Mar '14) Jan 22 Little monster 217
Who Is The Greatest Rock N Roll Band? [POLL] (Dec '12) Jan 21 mats sweden 8
Studies seek to answer if the arts can help the... Jan 19 lizzybowen 2
Why do people hate Yoko Ono? (Sep '09) Jan 15 KittenL 284
Beatlemania returns to Halton Hills Jan 7 spending at Library 3
More from around the web