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.

Victor Abreu

Miami Beach, FL

#13199 Nov 10, 2013
Anyway thanks for the info!! I really appreciated !!
Peace out!!

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13200 Nov 10, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
Yea Yea Yea some albums have this label, Dolby and it says digitally remastered in mono. Again, I have no idea what this means!!
I think you should take another look at those albums victor...it probably says "digitally remastered FROM mono"...their is a way of producing pseudo stereo from a mono source...Victor..why do I get the feeling you are testing me here, or are you being sincere in your questions?

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13201 Nov 10, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
One album states and I quote "This album has been digitally remastered and formatted to its original Mono audiophile format". It sounds Greek to me.
AHA! Now do you see how complicated this whole subject can be. Give me more details of the album in question, the album number would be the great explainer.
Chris

United States

#13202 Nov 10, 2013
Victor Abreu wrote:
One album states and I quote "This album has been digitally remastered and formatted to its original Mono audiophile format". It sounds Greek to me.
Maybe the album was originally mixed & recorded in mono. Then later it was mixed in stereo. Then when they remastered it, they used the original mono recordings. They may have remastered the stereo mixes as well. The Beatles did this with their music.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13203 Nov 10, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe the album was originally mixed & recorded in mono. Then later it was mixed in stereo. Then when they remastered it, they used the original mono recordings. They may have remastered the stereo mixes as well. The Beatles did this with their music.
The Beatles did what with their music? This is getting confusing....If you have a stereo recording there is no need to remaster in mono...ahh ferget it my head is spinning already.
Chris

United States

#13204 Nov 10, 2013
dolbyscat wrote:
<quoted text>The Beatles did what with their music? This is getting confusing....If you have a stereo recording there is no need to remaster in mono...ahh ferget it my head is spinning already.
When they remastered their music in 2009, they did it in both stereo & mono. Some music purists prefer the original mono mixes, so that's why they did both.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13205 Nov 10, 2013
The Beatles issued both mono recordings and stereo at the same time.. you paid yer money and made your choice. When their collection was remastered it was done both in mono and stereo using the original tapes, there was no changing stereo to mono and visa versa, it had already been released that way. By the way the remastering of the Beatles catalog was exemplary, both the mono mixes and stereo.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13206 Nov 10, 2013
dolbyscat wrote:
PS...It turns out that Lennon and McCartney were right in their evaluation of stereo, as it was at that time, their finest recordings were the mono mixes. I'm sure that our friend "Octopussy" will now chime in with his biased and unqualified opinion of Beatles recordings, but his opinion is not one shared out here in the real world...by his own words he has no knowledge of what qualifies as a GOOD recording, especially when he regards soundboard, and audience recordings on cassette as worthy of praise.
My remastered Beatles "Please Please Me" on CD sounds like shit and so does the remastered "Sargent Pepper" with the music blasting out of the speakers with no channel separation. And I never praised soundboard recordings. I know a good audience recording between a bad audience recording. They were never meant to be professionally recorded. Quit twisting my words around. I told everyone that I have a Beatle vinyl LP import made in Holland called, "Beatles Greatest" which is early stuff in stereo. I was just wondering why in this day and age, why The Beatle catalog was remastered so poorly in the US. "Please Please Me" is tinny with a breezy echo sound. I expected better.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13207 Nov 10, 2013
Chris wrote:
Yeah I agree Octo, noone around today is worth bootlegging. Besides, it seems like everyone releases a live album eventually, & some have released several over their career. Ok so Lisa Marie still owns Graceland, does she also have controlling interest in her dads music? If not, who does?
I used to go to a lot of concerts in the eighties but rarely go to concerts anymore unless it is someone I really want to see. The ticket prices have to be fairly reasonable. I remember paying seven to fifteen dollars to see a live show by a famous signed band or performer back then.
Chris

United States

#13208 Nov 10, 2013
dolbyscat wrote:
The Beatles issued both mono recordings and stereo at the same time.. you paid yer money and made your choice. When their collection was remastered it was done both in mono and stereo using the original tapes, there was no changing stereo to mono and visa versa, it had already been released that way. By the way the remastering of the Beatles catalog was exemplary, both the mono mixes and stereo.
When they first released their music on CD, it was only available in stereo, & the mono mixes became more important & sought after. The reason being that the Beatles were there for the mono mixing. And they left it up to the engineers to do the stereo mixing.
Chris

United States

#13209 Nov 10, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to go to a lot of concerts in the eighties but rarely go to concerts anymore unless it is someone I really want to see. The ticket prices have to be fairly reasonable. I remember paying seven to fifteen dollars to see a live show by a famous signed band or performer back then.
Yeah I went to a lot of concerts back in the eighties too, my average ticket prices were $15-$20. I saw bands like Metallica, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Ozzy, Wasp, Motley Crue, Aerosmith & Guns & Roses. I was lucky enough to be at two concerts that were recorded for commercial release. One was Iron Maiden Live After Death & Kiss Alive III.
Chris

United States

#13210 Nov 11, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I went to a lot of concerts back in the eighties too, my average ticket prices were $15-$20. I saw bands like Metallica, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Ozzy, Wasp, Motley Crue, Aerosmith & Guns & Roses. I was lucky enough to be at two concerts that were recorded for commercial release. One was Iron Maiden Live After Death & Kiss Alive III.
Some other bands I have seen are Twisted Sister, Dokken, Poison, Pantera, Black Sabbath with Dio & another time with Ozzy, Styx, Reo Speedwagon, Ted Nugent, Stryper & Great White.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13211 Nov 11, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I went to a lot of concerts back in the eighties too, my average ticket prices were $15-$20. I saw bands like Metallica, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Ozzy, Wasp, Motley Crue, Aerosmith & Guns & Roses. I was lucky enough to be at two concerts that were recorded for commercial release. One was Iron Maiden Live After Death & Kiss Alive III.
I've seen hundreds of shows and saw all the bands you mentioned. In more recent years, I saw both Kiss and Alice Cooper. Alice was impressive and he still can put on a great show. It was only twenty bucks a ticket. My wife and I treated my parents and took them out for dinner also. Alice Cooper never stopped moving and he did it 100% live. A really great commercial live album I recommend is Deep Purple's "Nobody's Perfect" I was fortunate to see The Rolling Stones open in Boston in 2005. That was the biggest concert I've ever been to.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13212 Nov 11, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Some other bands I have seen are Twisted Sister, Dokken, Poison, Pantera, Black Sabbath with Dio & another time with Ozzy, Styx, Reo Speedwagon, Ted Nugent, Stryper & Great White.
I've seen all those bands too. I saw both Robert Plant and Judas Priest more than once. The only band that truly sucked is Metallica. They had a screen of them partying backstage for an hour then mimed for the next hour all drunk. It was a rip off. Ronnie James Dio had a fire breathing dragon on stage. He was great.
Chris

United States

#13215 Nov 11, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen all those bands too. I saw both Robert Plant and Judas Priest more than once. The only band that truly sucked is Metallica. They had a screen of them partying backstage for an hour then mimed for the next hour all drunk. It was a rip off. Ronnie James Dio had a fire breathing dragon on stage. He was great.
Looks like you were a headbanger like me. I listened to a lot of other bands that I never got to see live. It's too bad that Metallica put on a crappy show for you. I saw them three times, & each one was better than the last. The band I've seen the most is Kiss. I saw them three times without the makeup. And then two more times when they put the makeup back on with the original lineup. I also got lucky enough to meet some of my heroes back then. I met Gene Simmons & Eric Carr from Kiss. I met James Hettfield from Metallica. And I met Geoff Tate, Chris DeGarmo & Michael Wilton from Queensryche.

Since: Jul 08

KELOWNA

#13216 Nov 11, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
My remastered Beatles "Please Please Me" on CD sounds like shit and so does the remastered "Sargent Pepper" with the music blasting out of the speakers with no channel separation. I was just wondering why in this day and age, why The Beatle catalog was remastered so poorly in the US. "Please Please Me" is tinny with a breezy echo sound. I expected better.
I think the problem is your ears, or maybe the lack of anything between them. Go buy yourself a decent hi fi system and get rid of that cheap old boom box. All the remastered Cd's received critical acclaim when they were released...but of course Octopussy hears something no-one else does...oh well!! It must be a burden to be blessed with such acute hearing. Actually I'm surprised you can still hear at all after attending so many heavy metal concert, is there any band that you haven't seen???
Chris

United States

#13217 Nov 11, 2013
Octopus wrote:
<quoted text>
My remastered Beatles "Please Please Me" on CD sounds like shit and so does the remastered "Sargent Pepper" with the music blasting out of the speakers with no channel separation. And I never praised soundboard recordings. I know a good audience recording between a bad audience recording. They were never meant to be professionally recorded. Quit twisting my words around. I told everyone that I have a Beatle vinyl LP import made in Holland called, "Beatles Greatest" which is early stuff in stereo. I was just wondering why in this day and age, why The Beatle catalog was remastered so poorly in the US. "Please Please Me" is tinny with a breezy echo sound. I expected better.
Octo you are not alone, I read a lot of reviews & found that a lot of people didn't like the remasters. Tomorrow I willl listen to both the mono & stereo versions of Please Please Me & tell you if there is a difference. The mono version may sound better, because the album was originally recorded in mono.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13218 Nov 11, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Octo you are not alone, I read a lot of reviews & found that a lot of people didn't like the remasters. Tomorrow I willl listen to both the mono & stereo versions of Please Please Me & tell you if there is a difference. The mono version may sound better, because the album was originally recorded in mono.
It's strange because no where on the CD does it say if it is "stereo" or "mono" but it is very tinny. I'm not sure why but it is perhaps one of the worst quality sounding commerial CD's I've ever heard. My copy of "Rubber Soul" was a used CD and the songs fade in and out through out the disc. However, my two disc set, "Soul Sessions" boot has amazing sound. I knew everything was remastered in 2009 so I assumed that the CD's would sound perfect. I purchaced both "Please Please Me" and "Sargent Pepper" Both disappointing. "Sargent Pepper" is so distorted, it is unlistenable. I would've picked up more Beatles had they've been done correctly. The Beatle bootlegs I have sound top rate.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13219 Nov 11, 2013
dolbyscat wrote:
<quoted text>I think the problem is your ears, or maybe the lack of anything between them. Go buy yourself a decent hi fi system and get rid of that cheap old boom box. All the remastered Cd's received critical acclaim when they were released...but of course Octopussy hears something no-one else does...oh well!! It must be a burden to be blessed with such acute hearing. Actually I'm surprised you can still hear at all after attending so many heavy metal concert, is there any band that you haven't seen???
I have a Denon hi fi system in my home. Apparently, there is nothing wrong with my stereo or my ears. I have 3000 Elvis CD's and even audience recordings sound amazing going through my speakers. In any event, the Beatle remasters suck. Obviously, the critical aclaim they apparently recieved was a lie.

Heavy Metal in the eighties was bands playing real instruments live and in the studio. Plus there were an endless array of talent back then. Too bad the hair bands died out. It was rock guitar with great studio production, great lyrics and musicians. Today, the so called artists record to computerized programed beats. It is definitely not better. Garbage.
Octopus

Albany, NY

#13220 Nov 11, 2013
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like you were a headbanger like me. I listened to a lot of other bands that I never got to see live. It's too bad that Metallica put on a crappy show for you. I saw them three times, & each one was better than the last. The band I've seen the most is Kiss. I saw them three times without the makeup. And then two more times when they put the makeup back on with the original lineup. I also got lucky enough to meet some of my heroes back then. I met Gene Simmons & Eric Carr from Kiss. I met James Hettfield from Metallica. And I met Geoff Tate, Chris DeGarmo & Michael Wilton from Queensryche.
I was never a big fan of Kiss or Metallica. However, I went with friends to hundreds of concerts back in the day. It didn't have to be strictly just hard rock or metal. I've seen Stevie Ray Vaughan and BB King. I like all kinds of music. I just expect the artists to play live on stage. Metallica didn't. It was the biggest rip off I've ever been to. I wouldn't see them again. Kiss wasn't great but at least they played live in full costume under the hot lights for over two hours. It was basically fun just to check out the fans. Many had their kids with them dressed as Kiss. I loved Queensryche from the very beggining. I had their self titled EP on cassette when it first came out. "The Lady Wore Black"

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
News Hear Joe and Jill Biden's Thoughtful Summer 201... Aug 16 K-DJ 1
my beatles friends (Nov '07) Aug 16 Greg 96
News Keith Richards criticises The Beatles as a live... Aug 12 Greg 2
Why do people hate Yoko Ono? (Sep '09) Aug 8 TrippyHippie 289
News Why "Revolver" still matters: The 50th annivers... Aug 8 Greg 1
Poll The Beatles VS. Elton John Aug 1 Greg 2
Dr BLT's Song Sequel to LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DI... Jul '16 Bruce 1
More from around the web