Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Lady Gaga and Anastacia

if Lady Gaga can be in this list with singles+album, also anastacia must to be with album+singles -.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccendiLaLuce (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

anyone?--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Jackson 5

The Jackson 5 have actually sold 250 million records. Please place them on the right part of the list. Look at their official Wikipedia page - The Jackson 5 - which shows numerous references proving they have sold 250 million records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfryett (talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on their certified sales, they are placed in the correct bracket.--Harout72 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tim McGraw

I was going over Tim McGraw's certifications earlier, and was wondering if maybe he should be added to the list? From my research, He only has certifications in the US and Canada, but it's close to 50 Million Records. His Certifications are:

  • Canada certified sales: 1,290,000 (Total:1,290,000)

This brings his certifications to a total of 44,340,000. As of right now, I haven't found any sources that claim 50 Million records, but should he be considered based on certifications? Ga Be 19 03:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at McGraw's US certified and I must say that they look impressive, he definitely deserves to be on the list. Based on his US certified sales only, his actual total should be somewhere around 50-55 million. I can't look at his Canadian certified sales due to CRIA's site being offline, and I can't find any certifications for other markets.--Harout72 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Same here, I couldn't find any certifications outside of the US, but his Canadian certifications are 1,290,000. I contacted the CRIA database coordinator; Jennifer DeChamplain, earlier this year and she sent me that PDF file with his certifications. As for sources, I found some claiming below 50 Million, such as Entertainment Weekly claiming 34 Million, and LA Times claiming 40 million but I can't find a source that claims 50 Million, and I'm in full agreement that he deserves to be on this list. Ga Be 19 07:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you also had CRIA's official complete list of certifications uploaded above, I failed to click on it. While LA Times is a highly reliable source, the figure they have posted for McGraw is really low, the record companies for country artists are the only ones, I've noticed, that do not care about inflating figures, I wish that was the case with all others. But according to what his certified sales suggest, his actual sales are 50 million+.--Harout72 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the inflated figures, but i'll keep searchin' for a WP:RS that states 50 Mill. Ga Be 19 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cascada

If GaGa's 55 million = Singles+Albums, then Cascada should also be listed with 50 million Singles+Albums. See here --Cprice1000talk2me 15:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Cprice, see the "citation needed" tag? It's the same content from Wikipedia. Nothing different. Novice7 | Talk 16:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh XD I'm so dumb --Cprice1000talk2me 18:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Paula Abdul

For what it's worth, and I know I'll need specific sources to meet the requirement on this article according to [some] editors (as per Hammer discussion), here are claims for Abdul:

According to sources, including the introduction on the new CBS show Live to Dance, Abdul has sold about 60 million records worldwide to date.[1][2][3][4] 63.131.4.149 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As you may already have noticed, this list informs all editors at the top of both the actual page Note: Although this list largely relies on claimed figures by highly reliable sources, some of the figures may need further examination to avoid inflated sales figures which is frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes and the talk-page The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures. Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. Therefore, as we always do, I checked Paula Abdul's certified sales to see if her actual sales could be anywhere the 60 million mark as CBS claims. Here are all the certified sales:
Note that there are no certified sales for Abdul in most of the markets due to weak sales including Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Argentina, Brazil. Also we have an equally reliable source ABC as CBS claiming 30 million records for Abdul which correctly correlates with what the certified sales suggest. Consequently, Abdul should not be added to this list as the 60 million by CBS has clearly been inflated for marketing purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

P!nk

Where is P!nk in the list. Pink has sold more than 30 million albums and over 45 million singles worldwide according to her Wikipedia page... so that is 75 milion records world wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.238.214 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The source which is being used on there to support Pink's record sales states 30 million albums only, the source does not mention anything about the sales of the singles. I have already corrected that on her page.--Harout72 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, if you check this page http://www.pinkspage.wg.am/diskografie.html you'll see that p!nk has sold 95.4 records worldwide and that page is based on mediatraffic.de which is a very reliable source so I hope someone will put her on the list because she more than deserves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeatspeaches (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

-> It is based on www.mediatraffic.de and that same source gives the same figure for Lady GaGa and her 55 million records sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeatspeaches (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that mediatraffic.de is as unreliable as a source can ever get, you can ask the folks at WP:RSN if you'd like.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

-> However, 90% of journalists take that as a source and it does correspond to the 30 mio albums sold figure stated by sources you call reliable. Actually, why don't u try to have a reliable source? Because not including p!nk in the list makes this article as unreliable as you think mediatraffic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeatspeaches (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC) -> If you look here, she has already made the 50mio mark without counting her physical single sales : http://www.popinstereo.com/archives/6990 I'll look for a reliable source now Pinkeatspeaches (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

- It includes the Diva Pink in the list immediately! it has 90 million albums more than and singles sales… you made Singles + Albums with ALL the OTHER ARTISTS… E WHY NOT WITH THE PINK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.199.119.67 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Journalists take Mediatraffic.de as a source? I wonder what news services those journalists work for, and how do know that? To make this short, are there reliable sources such as The New York Times, BBC, LA Times, The Washington Post etc. which claim that Pink has actually sold 50 million records (albums, singles, videos)? This list requires at least 50 million records in sales for artists to be included. Pink's certified sales from the markets which cover 80% of all the global sales are at 27.2 million and that suggests that her actual sales (including albums, singles, videos) may not have yet reached the 50 million mark, perhaps 40 million+. Those figures for certified sales, by the way, are retrieved from the certification databases of certifying agencies.--Harout72 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

-> I've just read your file and A LOT of her singles are not listed in there. Just look at the US section and compare it to the Australian one. There are at least 10 songs missing and they did enter the BB HOT 100 so you can't say there's no figure about it. Actually, where did u take those numbers from? Pinkeatspeaches (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

-> another link that states that she has crossed the 50mio mark : http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pnk-set-to-release-greatest-hits-so-far-on-november-16th-104329733.html and again it does not take physical singles into account but so far I'll be ok. Pinkeatspeaches (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Singles, albums and even videos may appear on the charts for a few weeks but in order to sell in large amounts to reach the certification-levels, they would need to spend many weeks within the top-20. In other words, if records (albums, singles) spend only a few weeks within the top-100, that won't generate enough sales to get certified. The certified sales are retrieved from the following official sites:

I have the levels of the markets for different periods posted at the footnotes below the the first main table on the list here. As for your recent source, we'd need something more reliable, a news service preferably, like the ones the other artists on the list are supported with.--Harout72 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

-> I posted TWO sources that use the exact same figure and both are run by professionals but of course they are not as ethos-serious as Daily Mail or Washington Post. However, I demand that you put p!nk on the list or will consider this article biased by your own opinion (yes because it is an opinion not to consider two sources as reliable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeatspeaches (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First, let me tell you that I don't appreciate your attitude at all I demand that you put p!nk on the list or will consider this article biased by your own opinion (yes because it is an opinion not to consider two sources as reliable) especially after all the time that I took to provide you with detailed explanation here. I have already asked you above are there reliable sources such as The New York Times, BBC, LA Times, The Washington Post etc. which claim that Pink has actually sold 50 million records (albums, singles, videos)?. Now where are the articles published by The Washington Post and The Daily Mail that you're referring to?--Harout72 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I see:

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The first one, 30 million albums seems just about right for Pink's album sales, the second source states an outrageous figure for singles sales only, 45 million, which in fact should not be more some 12-15 million maximum based on what her certified singles suggest which is some 5.7 million from the markets above. Pink's overall actual record sales should be somewhere around 50 million that is albums, singles, videos combined.--Harout72 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Doors

I think The Doors should really be added on the list:

I guess their total certified sales would be more than 50 million records worldwide. Some reliable sources that support 80 million sales figure:

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that The Doors should be on the list, supporting their stay with the Daily Express may not be the right choice. I think we should try and locate a source which is preferably a highly regarded news service such as The New York Times, LA Times, The Washington Post, BBC etc.. Also, it would be best to find an article by a good source which uses the term Records rather than just Albums. Overall, it's best to discuss the reliability of the sources on the talk-page here before adding artists onto the list. However, I strongly disagree with the statement above (the band outsold Queen, Pearl Jam, Britney Spears, Eminem, Bee Gees etc.), the certified sales of all of those artists with an exception of Pearl Jam (which is the only one that I have not checked yet) are much higher than that of for The Doors, both worldwide and US. These here are the certified sales of albums only for US, for the US certified singles, one needs to look at the complete list of certifications for each artist respectively, for example Bee Gees, Britney Spears or The Doors--Harout72 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for the confusion. I meant The Doors sold more albums in the U.S than Queen, Bee Gees etc., and I could be wrong. I will try to find a better source, but anyhow, Daily Express is a WP:RS. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Boney M

Boney M are currently on the list with 140m claimed sales. I think this is a bit steep as they only sold well in Europe and have no certs in the US. I have found 100m from The Telegraph and 80m from The Express Tribune. Also The Mirror says 80m. Mattg82 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think bringing their claimed figure down to 100 million would be fair. But anything less than that may be lowering it too much. I went over their available certified sales, and all those markets the databases of which go all the way back when Boney M have begun releasing their albums/singles, suggest strong sales including UK (total certified sales: 5,110,000), Germany (total certified sales: 4,750,000), France (total actual sales: 9,695,158), Holland (total certified sales: 800,000), Finland (total certified sales: 169,828). Again, they are early beginners; therefore, it's very hard to see how well they've done in other markets as most of the markets don't have databases stretching back to mid 70s.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
OK I've changed it to 100m using The Daily Telegraph source. Mattg82 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John Denver

John Denver definitely should have been listed as his record sales are around 54 million as can be also found through our John Denver page (discography link)...also quite reflective by viewing the charts on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification and also this is a reflective site as well: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1444336/denver-goes-multiplatinum.jhtml

[1]


Deutschendorf (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Deutschendorf January 11th, 2011

Please be careful of cut/paste copyright violations, even on talk pages. Please find a reliable source, besides answers.com, if you wish to add this to the John Denver article or to here. Thanks.  7  03:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Distribution vs. Illegal downloading

Given actual copyright statutes, and that all notable successful prosecution for illegal copying has been related to the media in question being re-distributed, instead of that it was downloaded, it seems that the references in this page to "illegal downloading" should be changed to illegal distribution.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Egdiroh (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A-ha

Don't really think this is a WP:RS. Although, BBC confirms 35 million records sales. Scieberking (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe The Norway Post is as reliable as some well know news services including The Washington Post. I am not at all sure about the reliability of this source though, the original work is clearly not BBC's, it's by Beta Music, which I believe is a site that could be logged in and edited by registered user, correct?--Harout72 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, The Norway Post might be a WP:RS. About the BBC review, nope. The review is written by Wyndham Wallace who is a professional writer and music manager. The login thing, I think, is just for comments. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Some other BBC pages that say 35 (and even 36) million:

According to:

Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, but then all of those sources with an exception of Daily Mail speak of a-ha's albums sales only 35-36 million (albums) which correlates with what The Norway Post states for album-sales. I do; however, think that the 40 million stated by the Daily Mail is a more realistic figure than the 51 million by The Norway Post based on what a-ha's available certified sales suggest.

Any opinions on whether we should remove a-ha altogether, or should we leave them on the list?--Harout72 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted from the list. In addition on the band's wikipedia entry, The Norway Post (website: norwaypost.no) is mistaken for Posten Norge (website: posten.no). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the publisher in the citation, but that of course still didn't mean that The Norway Post is not reliable. By the way, I think we should have waited for more editors state their opinions too before we removed a-ha. If after a few days no one objected to the proposal of a-ha's removal, it would've been safe to proceed. Oh well, let's see what happens.--Harout72 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I undid my own edit. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


I think it's fairly obvious they haven't sold what's been stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstep22 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

Is this a good enough source that Kelly has sold over 50 million records? http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-americanidolgreats/7/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.128.219 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Comcast.net refers to Nielsen SoundScan yet it doesn't provide any link or reference. According to Showbiz Tonight, she sold some 10 million albums and 15 million singles, which is, IMO, more realistic. Scieberking (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That is in the United States alone, according to Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/features/top-24-american-idols-of-all-time-1004088662.story#/features/top-24-american-idols-of-all-time-1004088662.story?page=4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.128.219 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

tlc

They clearly have sold atleast 50 million albums why are they not on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.77.206 (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias

Hi everyone. I find it ridiculous to have Julio in the same league as Elton John, I mean, take a look at his certified sales. I have some sources that I feel should, alongside the certifications argument, be enough to put him in the 100-199 table with sales of 100 million. I found Ticketmaster, Allmusic, People and Legacy Recordings. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias is an early beginner (1969), so we don't have the luxury of seeing how well he's done in his native market as Spain's certification-database begins from 2004, or in other Spanish speaking markets including Mexico the certification-database of which begins from 1999. But overall based on his available certified sales he seems to have sold 100 million records, but as Nathan pointed above, 200 million would be a big stretch even if we had access to all his actual sales.
While Iglesias' available certified sales disagree with the 200 million as stated in our currently provided sources [5], [6], we'd have to locate equally reliable sources that state 100 million to replace those sources.--Harout72 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message Harout :)
Well I have some issues with this. First off, both those reliable sources for Iglesias contradict each other. One says albums and one says records, so that already is an issues. Next, while I know he's predominantly popular in Latin markets, I find it unrealistic if his success is that large apart from US, Canada, Europe and Asia. I mean, he's got barely 30 million (with France being actual sales) and that only leaves a few Latin American countries. I don't see how we could have him at 200, this would put Elton John at around 500 million.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We should be able to locate a lower figure coming from a reliable source, but removing him from the list altogether may not be the right approach as he has significant number of certifications and plus he's an early beginner meaning lot of his sales have gone uncertified in many markets. Let's try and locate a lower figure. By the way, I removed the source which used the term Albums.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "200 million" is still logic for Julio Iglesias, who has been called the biggest-selling Latin-pop artist of all time. As Harout pointed above, he started his career earlier before many certification database began (especially his native country, the 8th world's biggest music market). For Nathan, Iglesias has a significant popularity in the 1970s worldwide, including Asia (I'm an Asian, by the way). So just leave it as "200 million", especially to avoid the higher claim "300 million" from his official site[7]. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that 200 million is very possible for Iglesias, he has to be under-certified in Mexico and Argentina and even his Brazilian sales have to be much more that those certifications. Im from Latin America, and I have to say that he was quite popular here on the 70s as well. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Motley Crue

I placed Motley Crue back where it was before as their certified sales clearly suggest not more than 50 million in actual sales. Besides the current article which states 50 million records by Reuter was replaced by another article by Reuter again which is only a few months newer and the work is not even by Reuters, it's by (MARKET WIRE) and states an illogical figure of 80 million albums, not records. I went over Motley Crue's available certified sales which I have to say, 95% are US certifications.

US certified sales: 23,500,000 albums, 500,000 singles, 500,000 video long-forms, 200,000 video boxsets (Total: 24,700,000)
UK certified sales: 160,000 albums
Canadian certified sales: 1,450,000 albums

I can't find certifications for any other markets, perhaps they have some for Canada, I will contact CRIA and ask for a complete list of their certifications. However, it's clear that Motley Crue have not sold more than 50 million records worldwide.--Harout72 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideas

Two ideas come to mind which would really benefit this article.

First: The sales category that lists artists from 100 million - 199 million is way too large of a gap. There are too many acts listed in that category. It would be better reading to split that category into two; 150 million - 199 million, and 100 million - 149 million.

Second: The "Period Active" column needs to reflect when the artist had a recording (an album or a single) available for purchase that can actually be counted toward their sales tally. For instance, Madonna's entry states she was active beginning in 1979. Writing this can make someone believe Madonna had recordings from 1979 through 1981, there are none. Her first record (album or single) was in 1982. Although she was a backup dancer for an artist named Patrick Hernandez in Europe, and may have even done some backup vocals on one of his recordings, she had no product out herself that could be classified as Madonna, and had no product that could be added to her overall sales tally. Likewise, Whitney Houston's entry states she was active beginning in 1977. Although she sang background for Chaka Kahn and Lou Rawls on a song for each one, among other acts, and contributed one song to an album called "One Down" which featured many other acts, her own release (album or single) came in 1984 when she deutted on a single with Teddy Pendergrass. That is a product that can be counted toward Whitney Houston sales, so that's what her "Period Active" year should begin, 1984. Madonna's should be 1982; and any other act's beginning year on the list should be adjusted to reflect when their record came out, not when they signed up to to sing background, or dance, or play guitar, or play drums for another artist. This is the reason Janet Jackson's entry doesn't state she became active in the year 1973 when she began routinely appearing on stage with her brothers in Las Vegas; because this has no bearing on her record sales tally. -This is a List of Best Selling Artists, so here's the rule of thumb: If any artist's "Period Active" entry is listed prior to when a record really came out by that artist, then whatever recording that artist appeared on must be counted toward their record sales, since you are stating they were active during that period. So if Madonna's entry states 1979 because she was singing/dancing with Patrick Hernandez from 1979 to 1981, then Hernandez's sales during that time must be counted under Madonna's sales tally, since the article states Madonna was active then. Lou Rawls, Jermaine Jackson, and Chaka Kahn sales must be counted under Whitney Houston's sales tally from 1977 to 1984, because it states Whitney was active from 1977 in an article that lists the best selling music artist. Now of course it's totally WRONG to do it that way. So, the "Period Active" year must be changed on all act's in the list to reflect when their own recording was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I'd reverted two unreferenced edits that added 800 & 900 million album sales figures of Michael Jackson. After some research, I realized that CNN actually confirms 800 million album sales figure.

Other reliable source that asserts 800 million record sales:

Scieberking (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to an older version as the CNN's article incorrectly uses the term Albums and not Records, we need to support all our claimed figures with sources which talk about record sales precisely; in other words, if a source states Michael Jackson has sold 800 million albums, we'd expect Micheal Jackson fans come here and argue that if Jackson has managed to sell 800 million albums then his overall record sales (albums, singles, videos) should be way past the 1 billion mark. Therefore, we need to avoid all articles even published by reliable sources which do sometimes make that mistake and use the incorrect term even when they mean overall record sales. By the way, while reverting to an older version, I left out the source that claimed 300 million records for Jackson, I think Jackson has clearly sold more records than 300 million by now.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree with using those 800 million sources. Harout's right, we need sources that claim album, single and video sales (records). Also, I find it quite annoying that you guys still keep trying to update his record sales. They are already very inflated as it is. I mean he has less certifications than Madonna, yet he is listed with almost triple sales. Its completely absurd.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to point out the huge and endless discussion that lot of us went through last year regarding Micheal Jackson's record sales. The discussion can be found here, that discussion includes lot of editors including myself who disagree with Jackson's actual sales being anywhere close to 750 million based on what his available certified sales suggest. Again, as Nathan above pointed out correctly, the 750 million is inflated enough.--Harout72 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I remember that discussion very well, and this page came about to prevent random people adding grossly inflated sales figures because this magazine or that newsgroup said this and that, this entire encyclopedia article was a big joke with no credibility or proper structure. If CNN's sales figures contradict with official figures from institutions whose job it is to track sales information then obviously the CNN figures should not be regarded, they report the news based on what is told to them, they do not track sales. This is an encyclopedia article, we must use 'official' sales statistics. We don't need the name-calling and administrators moderating unruliness again. Take the time to read all the information that Harout has put in the hard yards to compile so people can read it, and above all, keep in mind that it has to be referenced by an official organization concerned with tracking sales. Veritas Blue (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Michael Jackson: The Numbers
  • Exclusive Look Into The Lifetime Sales Of The King Of Pop
  • Source: Sony Music USA, Universal Music

As promised here are the total numbers internationally, last updated July 31st 2010. Numbers will include Jackson 5 sales but will be separated accordingly so readers can easily see MJ's solo sales plus Jackson 5 sales. Also, I will break it down with album sales, download/single sales, plus I will include ALL DVD/VHS and other forms of musical release. Remember, these are the actual recorded sales numbers by both Sony and Universal and are not inflated in anyway. There are some sales from certain countries that are very hard to track, even by Sony. So these numbers are about as close as anyone is going to get. As you can see, the initial 750,000,000 units quoted by MJ was not far off. This does not include any pirated, illegally downloaded, or fan made albums, nor does it include any unofficial releases.

Jackson 5/The Jacksons

ALBUM SALES:

  • Diana Ross Presents The Jackson 5: 6,200,000
  • ABC: 7,500,000
  • Third Album: 7,150,000
  • Christmas Album: 4,200,000
  • Maybe Tomorrow: 3,900,000
  • Goin' Back To Indiana: 3,100,000
  • Greatest Hits: 6,500,000
  • Lookin' Through The Windows: 4,050,000
  • Skywriter: 3,200,000
  • The Jackson 5 In Japan: 1,300,000
  • Get It Together: 2,900,000
  • Dancing Machine: 3,000,000
  • Moving Violation: 2,200,000
  • The Jacksons: 6,000,000
  • Goin' Places: 800,000
  • Destiny: 3,500,000
  • Triumph: 3,400,000
  • The Jacksons Live: 2,800,000
  • Victory: 8,500,000
  • 2300 Jackson St: 750,000
  • Jackson 5 The Ultimate Collection: 5,500,000
  • Jackson 5 Gold: 3,500,000
  • Anthology: 2,800,000
  • Ultimate Christmas Collection: 1,900,000
  • 20th Century Masters: 3,000,000
  • Michael Jackson The Motown Years: 1,050,000
  • J is For Jackson 5: 700,000
  • Michael Jackson The Remix Suite: 1,600,000
  • Jackson 5 Greatest Hits: 900,000
  • Other: 10,800,000
  • Digital Downloads: 12,800,000
  • DVD/VHS SALES: 2,600,000
  • Ringtones: 1,600,000

Total Unit Sales: 129,700,000

-- Michael Jackson SOLO Album Sales:

  • Got To Be There: 6,000,000
  • Ben: 6,500,000
  • Music & Me: 4,800,000
  • Forever Michael: 4,900,000
  • Off The Wall: 22,100,000
  • Thriller: 69,800,000
  • Bad: 36,100,000
  • Dangerous: 35,200,000
  • HIStory: 20,900,000 (41.8 million units)
  • Blood On The Dance Floor: 7,000,000
  • 20th Century Masters: 2,500,000
  • Invincible: 13,300,000
  • Number Ones: 11,900,000
  • The Ultimate Collection: 1,020,000 (6 million units)
  • The Essential: 8,900,000 (17.8 million units)
  • Visionary: 5,000,000 (unit sales)
  • King Of Pop: 6,000,000
  • Hello World The Motown Solo Collection: 1,020,000
  • Michael Jackson The Stripped Mixes: 1,350,000
  • The Definitive Collection: 1,200,000
  • This Is It: 5,200,000
  • Other: 22,000,000

Total Albums: 292,690,000 or 327,290,000 if you include multiple disc albums as separate unit sales

-- Singles/Digital Downloads:

  • Motown/Universal Albums: 27,000,000
  • Off The Wall: 22,000,000
  • Thriller: 41,500,000
  • Bad: 32,800,000
  • Dangerous: 30,300,000
  • HIStory: 26,000,000
  • BOTDF: 2,300,000
  • Invincible: 6,800,000
  • Other: 15,000,000

Total Singles/Digital Downloads: 203,700,000

-- VHS/DVD's:

  • The Making Of MJ's Thriller: 9,500,000
  • Moonwalker: 3,500,000
  • Ghosts: 300,000
  • Number Ones: 5,600,000
  • The One: 1,050,000
  • Dangerous The Short Films: 2,500,000
  • Live In Bucharest: 2,500,000
  • This Is It: 11,200,000
  • Other: 4,000,000

Total VHS/DVD Sales: 40,150,000

-- Music Video Sales:

  • I-Tunes: 9,500,000
  • Other Sources: 6,000,000

Total Music Video Sales: 15,500,000

-- Ringtones:

Total Global Ringtone Sales: 6,500,000

--

  • Total SOLO Michael Jackson Unit Sales: 593,140,000
  • Total Michael Jackson Unit Sales (J5 Included): 722,840,000

--88.112.153.100 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All figures are unsourced and useless.--Harout72 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See here --Cprice1000talk2me 01:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the figures on that page that I went over are rather inflated, including the total sales for Off the Wall at 22,100,00, the available certified sales from available markets which cover the 80% of all the global sales are 9 million. The figure for Bad is awfully inflated also, 36,100,000, the certified sales are only 17 million. The figure for Dangerous is totally off also, 35,200,000, the certified sales are only 15 million. The figure for Thriller, 69,800,000 looks surprisingly not as inflated compared to what the certified sales for it suggest, 42,500,000. Even with these figures most of which are inflated by good 20-30% bring Jackson's solo career's total to 593 million, but it's unclear what the person who posted tried to prove with all of that as Jackson's claimed figures on the list are 350 million (which is much closer to what Jackson's certified sales suggest) and 750 million. And the total for Jackson 5 should always be viewed separately as it has nothing to do with Jackson's solo career. --Harout72 (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing with everything Harout said above, we cannot use some fansite or Jackson's website. All sources for sales matters must be reliable independent references. Besides, certifications don't agree.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson has sold 50 million records since his death, which brings it up to 800 million record sales. Please change this. Furthermore, you are leaving out The Jackson Five which is complete UNFAIR, HE WAS OFFICIALLY AND TECHNICALLY the lead singer of the group (the others were simply backing vocals) and, in fact, ALL JACKSON FIVE MUSIC IS NOW RELEASED BY UNIVERSAL MUSIC (MOTOWN IMPRINT) UNDER MICHAEL JACKSON, NOT THE JACKSON FIVE, BECAUSE HE IS THE OFFICIAL ARTIST. Therefore, the 250,000,000 records sold by The Jackson Five should be added to Michael Jackson under his name. With these two additions his record sales stand at over one billion. This must be updated because of his legacy. I write as an editor of a leading publication and I am sick of Wikipedia feeding unreliable information - MICHAEL JACKSON WAS THE ONLY SINGER OF THE JACKSON FIVE AND THEIR MUSIC IS NOW OFFICIALLY MARKETED AS HIS. You cannot disregard posthumous releases, either: for example, on top of the fifty million albums sold since his death, the new 'Michael' album has sold over 3 million copies worldwide in its first week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfryett (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, everyone would agree that Jackson has sold some 50 million records posthumously; however, lot of us also agree that Jackson's actual record sales before his death was nowehere past the 500 million mark. I have gone over Michael Jackson's certified sales in detail, market by market, and record by record, which you can find it here, and Jackson's available certified sales for all those markets which cover 80% of all the global sales clearly suggest that the actual sales is way below 500 million records, even now with all those records that were sold after his death. As for Jackson 5, we have Jackson 5 posted in a lower bracket on the list, and that should be viewed separately.--Harout72 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. Harout72's points are logical and reasonable. Scieberking (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Michael Jackson sold 800 millions records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.95.194.220 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what's going on here, Jackson didn't sell 750-800 million records but it's OK to say The Beatles and Elvis sold more than 1 billion. What king of wikipedia page is that? By the way, may i ask who are you Harout72's to decide which one "should" be on the top of the list? Are you the ambassador of IFPI and all Majors? Stick to the facts would you?, The Beatles and/or Elvis Presly never sold 1 billion, something around 400-500 but sure not that inexplicable figure. The official fact is that Jackson won the Artist of the Millenium (WMA), an award that stated back in 2000 that he is the best selling SOLO artist of all time, 10 years later the real fight is now between The Beatles and Jackson, I would assume the "King of Pop" is the best selling ARTIST of all time but not offically yet. No music companies or organisation has the gutts to state which one sold more, but it's about time i guess. But still, this page is 80% a crap of information Readerweb (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you to familiarize yourself with Michael Jackson's and all other artists' certified sales before you make another personal attack which I assure you will be reported. And in case you have not noticed, all I do is stick to the facts; which is why I put such time and effort into examining every artists' claimed figures to avoid filling this page with inflated figures which is clearly not appreciated by people like you who only have one wish on their minds and that is having their favorite artist at the top of the page regardless of whether their claimed figure is true or not. By the way, while the certified sales for artists like Jackson whose fame has begun in late 70s, should cover good 50-60% of his actual sales, the certified sales do cover only some 25-35% of the actual sales for artists like Presley who's sold at least half of his entire albums/singles before late 70s.--Harout72 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen Mr. Readerweb. Nobody here is a compensated person and will not tolerate any uncivil behavior, as we all are volunteers. Harout72, too, is a volunteer and a very skilled and experienced one in his chosen field. And he's very right. Jackson's total certified sales is 151.6 million (even lesser than Madonna's 156.5 million). Scieberking (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to disagreement you call this a personal attack? No offense but i respect each one of you. I would ask you to read my words from another angle. First when i ask a question I would expect a GOOD explanation, it's been 7 years of my own investigation on that matter, some points are out of line :

- I totally disagree with the 256 (The Beatles), 197 (Elvis Presley) and 151 (Jackson) certified sales because it is impossible that you got all organisatons (RIAA, ABPD, SNEP, BMR, BPI, etc...) figures added for each artist.

- I totally disagree with putting the 2 figures (certified and estimated) and different claimed sales : estimated sales, certified sales, claimed sales, rumoured sales, imagined sales, etc.. this is way too much. Let's come up with ESTIMATED SALES

- Sources : webpages are not necessary a source, a lot of references are just a joke in term of reliability


Obviously we need a work team here to investigate true figures for all artists. i.e asking ALL association in the world to give us courtesly their statistics would be not that easy but the juice worth the squeeze. Anyway let's discuss about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readerweb (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you think certified sales are wrong, you are entitled to your opinion. See the references at the end of each figure? Follow them and look into it thoroughly. If you think anything's overstated, understated or mistaken, put forward your calculations/ suggestions with similar references. That's how Wikipedia works. And, if you notice, Harout72 is really very active and quick in updating Jackson's certifications from nearly every market. Be sure you sign your posts every time on talk pages. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Those kinds of figures will not be disclosed, we will never have complete figures as they affect certain businesses marketing strategies firstly, secondly some Artists have been bought over by various labels over time, and depending on how long ago they existed, some sales figures will be lost forever due to poor documentation. Thirdly, certain countries did not establish an accurate tracking method for sales until 20 - 30 years ago. You can try, as many others have before but accurate sales information directly from the labels will never happen. Veritas Blue (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Readerweb, take a look at my detailed analysis on the certified sales of all three:

By the way, Readerweb, you might also want to familiarize yourself with certification-award-levels when converting certifications of older releases into figures. You can find the certification-levels for different periods for each market at the footnotes immediately below the first table of our article.--Harout72 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty GOOD work you've done here Harout72, but I have to say it's incomplete (not from you), it's about certified sales found not officially published as of now (good work though). If we want to be fair we need to ask all organisations in the world about how many certifications have been edited until now for each artist, especially the Big Three. Some other point, regarding claimed sales, it seems perfectly clear that they're all inflated (Elvis, Beatles and Jackson) -> if Jackson sold more than 50 million since his death it should be added to the 750 million stated by WMA/Sony Music/MJofficialsite back in 2006,2008 and 2009. Saying that adding 50 million on 750 million is not right because Jackson sale are already too inflated is just an subjective opinion. I'm asking for changes on this Big Three section :

- The Beatles : claimed sales 1 billion (1 single figure not 2 or 3 + certified sales available)

- Elvis Presley : claimed sales 1 billion (1 single figure not 2 or 3 + certified sales available)

- Michael Jackson : claimed sales 800 million (1 single figure not 2 or 3 + certified sales available)

Finally, it would be fair to mention certified sales available or found (not official) eventhough it is quite hard to generate all certifications from all organisations in the world as of 2010, it's a kind of IFPI job but still we could give it a try, it would take month but well this is what wikipedia stands for.(Readerweb (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

While I'd agree that 1 billion in record sales are inflated for both Presley and The Beatles as the correct actual figures for them should be some 500 million for Presley and some 600-700 million for The Beatles, I have to emphasize that Michael Jackson's figure is awfully inflated as well as his actual sales should be somewhere around 350 million. Again it's much easier to analyze Jackson's sales based on certifications than The Beatles' or especially Presley's as all of Jackson's materials have been released during when all larger markets had certification-schemes established. But that's not the case with Presley's records, good half of his records (singles, albums) have been sold in 90% of the globe without having been certified because no music market with an exception of the US market had a certification-system. The Beatles, too, have sold big portion of their records when certifications were not being issued yet. With regards to your proposal above (1 single figure not 2 or 3 + certified sales available), the certified sales cannot and should not be added to actual claimed figures as the certified sales represent: for example, certified sales for Bad-> 8x Platinum, the actual sales for Bad ->8.9 million (for example). In other words, the two have no direct relationship. And finally, again this is with regards to your proposal, the footnotes do inform the readers that: Some (or all) records released and sold prior to the certification system's establishment year may not be found within the available searchable certification databases.--Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, although we should come up with one single figure concerning claimed sales i.e The Beatles 1 billion (not "1 billion, 600 million"), many figures gaathred in one single area is pretty much confusing. Well the question is : which figure should show up? IMO the official claimed sales :

- The Beatles'1 billion stated by Guiness book and by EMI

- Elvis Presley's 1 billion stated by the official website

- Michael Jackson's 750 million stated by World Music Award, official website and Sony Music

You all noticed that most of artists listed here have no official statement concerning CLAIMED SALES from their majors or record companies (which is too bad) we should then specify "no official figures found" or something.

Finally, if this wikipedia pages is about true and deep information, adding more section is no harm, ie :

- Artist

- Country

- period

- genre

- Total certified sales (from available markets) with notes

- official claimed sales (1 single figure if available from Major and/or organisation or official website)

- effective sales or calculated sales or something like that, i'm not sure what title would be not confusing. Also this area would be conflicting but if we come up with good references, it should be alright. If no references available then the area would remain empty. Waiting for your comments and ideas guys (Readerweb (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't see a problem with an official sales 'claim' and the certified sales in conjunction. However labels like EMI and Sony are not legitimate for record sales claims of their own artists without some kind of documented evidence, since they don't provide any of that, but merely claim it in publicity...it seems we will have to go on neutral third-party institutions that focus on sales specifically. I don't particularly mind if there is only 1 claimed sales figure, but you did ask that this article have more 'true' and 'deep information' - and I think multiple sources of claimed figures does exactly that does it not?
Presley's official website, unless it specifically points to a credible documented figure can't be taken as reputable either. That would be biased and unfair to this page as a whole. I do believe though they do list the certified sales, which is already listed in here in any case. The World Music Awards' claims are contrary to what has been officially certified by sales, it is not justified to use one completely different source of information for MJ or Elvis or The Beatles by an institution that does not actually audit sales figures, and use a sales certifying institution as a source for all the other artists. For reasons of neutrality, all artists should be subject to the same criteria.
Also, your ideas about adding extra sections, isn't it already up there? Veritas Blue (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A. R. Rahman

I would like to revive a discussion page in Archive 16, after which Rahman was removed from the list. The reasons given there was that none of his albums had certified sales or has been charted. Actually in India, there is no authorized sites that publish the sales charts or certifications. And, certifications are not at all necessary for inclusion in this page and not many of the artists here have any certifications. Another reason was a claim that India cannot possibly produce sales of that magnitude. This seemed so stupid and childish for me, as India holds the world's largest film soundtrack industry. And Rahman is a soundtrack composer, who has released more that 100 soundtracks, and many of them reaching a sale of more that 5 million. There has been no sufficient reason for his exclusion and I can cite more than enough reliable links for his claimed sales. Arfazph (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that in India, there is no authorized sites that publish the sales charts or certifications is incorrect, Indian music market does issue certifications, see this. Also, saying certifications are not at all necessary for inclusion in this page tells me that you have not read what's in the box of this discussion page at the top, The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures. Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. And I am not at all sure why you'd bring up soundtracks as an example, when you emphasize that he's the composer. Unless 50-60% of the tracks on soundtracks are performed by Rahman himself, they should not be counted towards his own record sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The link you have provided doesn't give a categorized or detailed certification list. And the box says that Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. Exceptions may be made in certain circumstances. This is definitely a case of exception as many websites have cited him as the leading artist from Asia and one of the leading artist in the whole world, but no certifications are available. And I doubt whether many of the artists in this list have certifications.--Arfazph (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions would be for artists from larger markets like Japan (second largest in the world) who have begun their career early and there is no way of checking their sales through certifications. And even then the figure for a Japanese artist would have to be something between 50-100 million. India has never had a large music market, and most of their record sales are pirated. Even The Telegraph does state that Rahman's sales fall into that category.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Arfazph's position. Having read all published figures of A. R. Rahman's worldwide sales of at least 150 million albums, (Time and the BBC for example) and the difficulty at present to retrieve certifications online from a particular website in India, I see no reason why an artist as phenomenally successful as Rahman should not be included. As far as piracy is concerned, yes, because of the issue, (also rampant in India), no artist's true upper limit sales numbers can ever be ascertained, something The Telegraph article states Rahman's albums are also a victim of. It also publishes his sales figures at the least. Where that ties into India's supposedly "small music market next to Japan" - (please provide a reliable source for this for completeness' sake) and not including Rahman in the table with his published figure sales as citations I have no idea. It doesn't make sense you would include the artist in the table if the Indian website you provided were able to give certifications for any artist while claiming India's "small music market" is the reason you've removed the name for now. What has that got to do with his global music sales? This is a clear example where an exception can be made as the website appears useless for now, and I have no problem with Rahman being reinstated in the table. Lifebonzza (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why anybody would speak of Rahman and and say What has that got to do with his global music sales?. Perhaps Rahman is an Indian phenomenon and I'm not arguing with that but he's not globally known for his fame, his fame lies within the market share that Indian music industry represents only. In order to know what kind of sales each music market generates annually, one should look at IFPI annual reports such as this here (see page 24). Retail value wise, the Indian music market is behind smaller music markets such as Argentinian, and unit wise, it's behind medium size markets like Canadian music market, see the same report the ranking of which I have based on units here. Finally, we do look at certified sales for all artists, and Rahman is not the only artist who's been removed from the list due to lack of or no evidence of certifications. We have removed dozens of artists, whether American or European or Chinese all of which had claimed figures as large as Rahman (over 100 million in sales).--Harout72 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot negate a person from our table of the best-selling artists of all time because of one user's opinions of the artist. The sources given here on Rahman appear very much to contradict your claims. Your views do not negate the artists' cited global sales figures. Having read the multiple third party reliable sources that contradict your claims and justify his inclusion in the table of the best selling artists of all time, having read the intro of the article and the guidelines allowing for an exception in the event of a lack of certification data to be made for someone precisely of Rahman's global stature, I fully support his reinsertion into the table.Lifebonzza (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is Rahman hasn't charted much on any chart of significance, so maybe you can create an article named "Best selling musicians in India" and place him in the no. 1 spot, but certainly not here. Scieberking (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which country he's sold the most in. Creating an article for the top selling artists in India and placing him there as you suggest does not negate the artist from this article too. Picking at straws doesn't help matters. The title of the article is List of Best selling music artists. The intro reads: The world's best-selling music artists lists artists with claims of 50 million or more record sales in multiple third-party reliable sources. The sales figures within the provided sources include sales of albums, singles, compilation-albums, music videos as well as downloads of singles and full-length albums. Within record-sales brackets, artists are listed in alphabetical order, rather than by number of records sold. The table the artists in which are listed with both their estimated sales figures and certified sales ranks the artist/band with most sales at the top." So there you have it. He certainly belongs in the table with his cited sales figures. Lifebonzza (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not one person's opinion, we have gained a consensus for removing Rahman from the list, see here. As I mentioned earlier above, we always look at artists' available certified sales, and the main page at the top does inform the editors about that: Note: Although this list largely relies on claimed figures by highly reliable sources, some of the figures may need further examination to avoid inflated sales figures which is frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes. Similarly, the talk page informs the editors about that too: The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't reached consensus on this I'm afraid as there still appears to be much disagreement over this. I am in agreement with Arfazph that it was necessary to revive this discussion for the reasons for his removal are extremely unconvincing. Both clauses you've included state may need further examination and some of the figures may need to be verified, and judging by the numerous reliable sources that have published Rahman's minimum global sales at the time of their writing, there remains not one of the many splitting hairs reasons put forward here that justifies this information's removal from the table. Certifications may not be attainable from the website at this time. Given the points raised above, the reliable sources and this specific artist, I see no reason why he should not be put back in the table. Lifebonzza (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
BUT, as Harout pointed above, there is also a reliable source that state A.R. Rahman could not hit that record sales figure. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The artist's huge global following since 1992, including in Asia (Malaysia etc.) has likely been factored in when his sales were published. As has already been pointed out, this is a reliable source that does NOT say what you claim, it says it is a minimum sales figure that may be inaccurate and bigger given the piracy in India. With the many reliable sources confirming his sales, it now appears silly not to reinclude him in the table. Lifebonzza (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the thing is, "sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures", which you're unable to do at the moment. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but again, you haven't given an adequate reason why an exception shouldn't be made as Arfazph has pointed out. Thanks all the same.Lifebonzza (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lifebonzza, you have received adequate and detailed explanation as to why Rahman is not on the list. Looking at certified sales for all recording artists is a very solid way of keeping this page free of inflated claimed figures. In the meantime, you might want to read up WP:RS, which clearly states The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication, and that is what we are doing. Now, since Rahman's certifications from Indian market are not available to us (and I am not sure if he has any due to lot of his sales being based on pirated cassettes), you could contact IMI and ask them if they could e-mail you IMI official complete list of certifications, such as the one that we get from CRIA (for example), see here. Unless it can be proven that Rahman has sold as many records (or close) as you insist on claiming, further discussions here are futile as we treat all artists in the same way.--Harout72 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Do everyone in this list have certifications? Or can I remove each and every artist whose sales are not supported by certifications? And still, nobody pointed the reason why Rahman is not an exception as there is no categorized certification list available in India.--Arfazph (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's been said more than once that India alone which is not a major music market could not have generated that amount of sales. And yes, certifications exist for all artists on the list with an exception of Michiya Mihashi, who happens to be from the second largest music market in the world, Japan. And 100 million in sales is quite logical for a Japanese artist.--Harout72 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just can't understand why you are still hanging at your point that India is a small music market. India certifies a sale of more than 150 million records an year (which was many times more before 2000s) and isn't it enough for its leading musician to generate a sale of 200 million records within a career of nearly two decades?--Arfazph (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, I haven't looked at A.R Rahman's sales figures in record certifications, if he doesn't exist in that as is claimed, then like all the other artists on this list who are not The Beatles, Elvis, or Michael Jackson and haven't had their sales audited like them, Rahman should have a claimed sales figure. I have looked at the Time Times and the BBC link, there is no reason for him to not exist on the list as per the citations of the other artists. I am for this addition, it is only fair that if AC/DC has a citation for 200 million record sold with the NZ Herald in there, then A.R Rahman with a citation from The Times and the BBC must be also put in there. The only other option is to do a breakdown of every single artist on that list like the top 3 and then exclude Rahman that way, which would seem rathed biased and also something I'm not going to undertake.
Harout, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Contacting the Indian departments are unnecessary, Arfazph is referring to how there are a 50+ artists here with references to claimed sales on the list like Rahman, but Rahman is excluded because of no certified sales. Either every single artist needs to have a breakdown now, or the whole list is redundant. That is definitely an unfair bias, it would seem with such a large population that India has, and the popularity of this composer it wouldn't at all be unreasonable to use claimed sales figures like the other artists. Veritas Blue (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We are currently working towards that, see New Suggestion below. Once we have the new resolution, no artist without supported certified sales will be on the list regardless of what music market they're from. This resolution is needed to keep this list with as few inflated claimed figures as possible, we've seen way too many inflated sales figures by now, and it's really time to make some changes here and approach and scrutinize every claimed figure more closely. Currently we only have one artist on the list with no certified sales and that is Michiya Mihashi, but even with that, the list should not be viewed as biased because certifications have been checked for all. The next breakdown will be for those within the 200 million to 299 million records.

I wasn't going to reply to Arfazph's posting because his claims above are unsourced (India certifies a sale of more than 150 million records an year (which was many times more before 2000s) and isn't it enough for its leading musician to generate a sale of 200 million records within a career of nearly two decades?), but I think I will make a point or two. According to IFPI reports, India in 2005 has had only 36 million CDs sold in their market (see page 24), in 2006 42 million sold (see page 24), in 2007 37 million CDs sold (see page 24), in 2008 36 million sold (see page 24). If they sell roughly around 40 million records annually, how can they certify 150 million records? Arfazph, Michael Jackson is known to be America's leading male artist for the past three decades and his US actual sales are somewhere around 150 million per his US certified sales (90 million), and Jackson happens to be largest-music-market's best selling male artist. How can you claim that someone like Rahman coming from India could have easily sold 200 million records?--Harout72 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

IMI is IFPI's affiliated industry association in India and it would be a better source for India's music sales. See the 2009 annual national report of IMI. You can clearly see India have made an audio sale (which excludes digital music sales) of 15 crore (150 million) units that year.

And there is no point in comparing Rahman and Michael Jackson. America's music sales does not solely depend on MJ or any other single artist. But in case of India, a good percentage of the music sales depend largely on Rahman himself.

Now I will make a point. The album rights of a Rahman album is sold for (roughly) 8-10 crore Indian rupees, which makes a sale of nearly 1 million units essential for the label. If he has released more than 150 albums, including some that had sold more than 12 million copies (See [8]), I think 200 million unit sales does not seem a large figure.--Arfazph (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Simply stating there is no point in comparing Rahman and Michael Jackson. America's music sales does not solely depend on MJ or any other single artist. But in case of India, a good percentage of the music sales depend largely on Rahman himself does not in any way prove that Rahman's record sales of 150 million is true. Again, as I mentioned above a complete list of certifications for Rahman from IMI would definitely help our discussion. By the way, IMI report doesn't mention anything about certifying 15 crores (150 million units), that amount has supposedly been sold, not certified (as you claimed above). Again if the majority of the sales is based on cassettes, IFPI report doesn't contain that information and frankly I find that amount of cassette-sales quite strange as 99% of the globe has switched from cassettes to CDs, especially in the past half decade. I think we've said enough of this. --Harout72 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

Since we often experience unnecessarily long and unproductive disputes with fans of artists/bands that are not included on the list, I’d like to make a suggestion to require a specific percentage of certified sales in order for artists to be included on the list regardless of what music market they are from. The part of the template which currently reads: Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. Exceptions may be made in certain circumstances should be amended. A requirement should be made that at least 10% of all claimed figures be supported by certified sales. In other words, if an artist’s lowest available claimed figure is 200 million; we should expect at least 20 million in certified sales. Consequently, the template should be paraphrased to read: To be included on the list, the lowest available claimed figures of all artists should be supported by at least 10% certified sales. I think requiring only 10% in certified sales for artists/band to be included on the list is quite fair. Let me also make it clear that my proposal has nothing to do with examining all claimed figures with available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harout, thanks for the suggestion. Its a cool idea, but I don't think 10% is enough, I'd wager 60%, (unless there is an explanation, such as Carey having large sales in Asia, however no certifications) but thats already putting Michael, Madonna and many others in trouble. Or else hundreds of others will be showing up here soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, note that I am suggesting the 10% only to get on the list; in other words, if Cliff Richard's claimed figure is 250 million, we'd require at least 25 million in certified sales in order to allow him onto the list. Because regardless of the fact that he's sold half of his records before UK or Germany (for example) began issuing certifications, he still would've had at least 25 million certified units had he really sold 250 million records. This 10% is mainly for two reasons: 1) It's for those artists who have begun their careers years before most of the markets had their certification-system established 2) It's for artists like A.R. Rahman or Alla Pugacheva both of whom have large claimed figures yet no evidence of certified sales, no evidence of sales. Those artists who have begun their careers after 1975 or 1980, and have lot of certified sales, we'll still continue examining their claimed figures and choose the most reasonable figure, that is closest to their certified sales, like we did it for Tina Turner for example.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

60% is way too much, 10% is not enough - 25% would be more reasonable (at least, for all the pre-1973 "uncertified" sales of UK singles) as the English language inferred unsuperiorally in Asian markets in this era, therefore calculational figure of events in totalisation would only be of mere significance and thus redundant to the culmination of factual established-based verifications (upon proof) that had rendered any significance of value due to exploitation of listed figures, at which time rendered (a la-like "payola") the falsification of duped-inducement of fabricational methodisation of exceedement of one's (or whole's) contrary beliefs. Corruptness, like now, was abound. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we don't need to write that requirement on this page. It can be assumed as WP:OR. Just leave it as it is. We still have this talk page to discuss every entry. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that 25% is better than 10%. But, the reality of the verifying sales figures is that different methods have to be used for different artists, so there should be leeway for requirements both above and below that figure depending on the artist. Hitthat (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Suggestion-2

OK, then let's make it 25% with the template reading something like: To be included on the list, artists/bands begun prior to 1975 are required to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by 25% certified sales. Please feel free to improve the wording. Also to make editing even clearer, right after the sentence in the template which currently reads The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures, we could add: All artists/bands begun after 1975 are expected to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by up to 50% and in some cases 75% certified sales. By 75%, we'd be referring to artists/bands launched during the era of Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears for whom certifications are available in the 80% of the globe. Again the wording for the second sentence could be re-phrased. Thoughts?--Harout72 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: Really awesome suggestion by Harout72 and I totally agree, but I really think it should be at least 35%. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the 25% is going to be for artists like Elvis Presley (for example) most of whose sales couldn't have gotten certified due to no market-with an exception of the US market-having a certification-system. But as you may have noticed above, we'll be requiring much higher percentage for much newer artists.--Harout72 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I totally like this rule Harout, although for pre-70s I agree for 35%. Also, leaving it this way, there are folks who don't belong here. I'll take a look and name them as I see em.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, what is the significance of the year 1975 in this discussion? Piriczki (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Piriczki's question, most of the important/larger music markets instituted their certification system in 1971 (Finland, although a smaller market), 1973 (UK, France), 1975 (Germany, Canada) and these markets along with the US market (certification system of which is established in 1958) generate 50% of the global sales. To answer Nathan's question, 35% will be a little too high as the US market is the only market lot of those pre-1975 artists will rely on, certification wise I mean. And the US market alone covers some 25-30% of the global sales, I think 25% is pretty fair.--Harout72 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I would caution against applying any percentage across the board to all artists. The US market may account for 25–30% of global sales but that doesn't mean that US sales account for 25–30% of worldwide sales for any given artist. The global market includes many different artists of different music styles, not to mention languages, that sell primarily in one country or region but not others. For example, the Japanese market is the second largest to the US but it is dominated by Japanese artists that have negligible sales in the West. Most American recording artists have at least 50% of their total sales within the US, and for some it is significantly higher. The Eagles, for instance, have sold 120 million albums worldwide according to this article and 100 million (or 83%) of that is in the US. George Strait has sold more than Madonna or Mariah Carey in the US but probably hasn't had significant sales outside North America unlike the aforementioned ladies. The converse also applies. Cliff Richard, for example, has some very high worldwide totals but he's never even had a gold album in the US. The same situation applies to Abba. They were somewhat popular in the US, but not very, nothing close to the level they enjoyed in other countries. Piriczki (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Suggestion 3:

Sliding scale
  • Before 1975: 15% (Before certs in major markets)
  • Before 1990: 25% (Before Soundscan)
  • Before 2000: 30% (Before Certs in Argentina, Mexico etc)
  • 2000 and after: 35%

or

  • Before 1975: 15%
  • Before 1990: 25%
  • 1991 and after: 35%

I am worried if we set the bar to high, quite a few artists will be wiped from the list. Particularly those under 100m records. Also ABBA only have just under 20% of 300m.

Again to clarify when an artist is placed in a particular era, is it when that artist first released a record? As multiple artists cross multiple eras. Mattg82 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To reply briefly Piriczki's comments, the reason why I came up with this suggestion is because most of the sales figures that we see are not what artists' actual sales are, that includes Cliff Richard's 250 million. But I am not going to deviate this discussion from its course as most of us who frequently edit this page know what the purpose of this suggestion is. Perhaps you could open a discussion and I along with others could comment and provide more explainion as to why it's needed to require a low percentage of certified sales.
Back to this. Mat, good catch on ABBA, I'm not at all ready to remove them from the list:). Just to be clear on Mat's suggestion regarding the brief explanation within the parenthesis, should we have those in the template or those are just for this discussion? I agree with the 15%, but I think we could raise the percentage level higher for others.
  • 15% for pre-1975 artists
  • 25-50% for those before 1990 (Argentina's certification database begins from 1980)
  • 50-75% for those after 1990-present (I think we could easily require 50-75% certified sales for these artists as Mexico's database kicks in in 1999, and Australia's database in 1997).
Yes, we should take the year into account that artists have released their first record. Also, as far as the wording for requirements goes, I was thinking to use the wording Are required to have for pre-1975 artists and Expected to have for all others after 1975, for example:
1) To be on the list, artists begun before 1975 are required to have their lowest available sales figures supported by 15% certified sales
2) Artists begun between 1975-1990 are expected to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by 25-50% certified sales
3) Artists begun in 1990 onwards are expected to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by 50-75% certified sales
Thoughts on the percentages or the wording?--Harout72 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - It should be 1991 onward, since the previous is until 1990. I think it should be a solid 75%. With 50, anyone will get in here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes the years are inclusive, the third group should read 1991 and onwards, as Soundscan started in 91, and artists who started in 1975 or 1990 would be placed in the second group. I think the use of the word expected is prudent, it would be unfair to see an artist dismissed for only having 24% or 49% certs and if were going with 75% I think it should only be for artists after 2000. Also yes we should add the the brief explanations within the parenthesis to the template, so it does not look like we have picked the years at random.
Another idea might be to add the template as an edit notice, so when a person edits the main page it will be clearly visible at the top of the screen. Mattg82 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Certification message template

I inserted the requirements into the template above just so everyone can see what they look like in action. I have added one additional requirement for newer artists 2000 onwards, this way the percentage goes higher steadily, doesn't jump from 15% to 25-50%. Also, couple of points we should look at before we finalize this. 1) I don't think we should worry too much about the SoundScan year 1991 as we are mostly creating those specific year-brackets due to the certification-databases becoming available to us in different years. 2) Also, to avoid contestant questionings by editors as to why the requirements are broken down to specific percentiles, should we somehow inform the reason for breaking down the years of the requirements? Should we state certification-databases of each music market begin covering record sales in different years, all of that information can be found on the main page of the list at the footnotes. I like the idea of edit notice, but I'm not familiar how it's done.--Harout72 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I've made the template clearer and added a note about the different eras being based upon when certification-databases were available. What do you think ? We could put the link to the main page which I forgot to add. Mattg82 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it, it looks like it's ready to be implemented to the actual template, if there are no objections from others.--Harout72 (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now implemented this and I have asked for the template to be added as a edit notice here. Mattg82 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Gb

AR rahman Ziyam Rikas (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AR Rahman

AR Rahman Ziyam Rikas (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AR Rahman

AR Rahman Ziyam Rikas (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_albums_has_John_Denver_sold_worldwide#ixzz1AmHSJRrR
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_17&oldid=1136932622"