Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Oasis

Can some one get me a better source for Oasis, they belong on the list, but I don't know how reliable the source I used was. They have had three albums sell 10 million+ worldwide (especially What's The Story Morning Glory which has sold 20 million), as well as three others that have sold around 5 million each, and a new album that has sold over 500,000 copies. This easily puts them over 40 million.

Yeh, but there vertualy unknown worldwide.

Whitney Houston: over 200 million records

Whitney Houston had sold over 200 million records. Just google her name + 200 million or google her name + 230 million records and you'll see tons of references everywhere. Her label last updated her totals in 2001 as 170 million records, but since then (7 years ago) her albums (Just Whitney, One Wish), compilations (Ultimate Collection), singles and old catalogue has sold easily an addition 30 million. It's funny how the person (below) responsible for Whitney's totals to be lowered actually is a fan of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion. Predictable! Whitney's total like I said as of 2001 were officially through her record lable over 170 million and today almost a decade later have been updated everywhere to over 200 million! Here are a few links:

http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/contributor/view/Whitney+Houston?contributorId=443 http://gospel-thebigplanet.blogspot.com/2007/05/whitney-houston-sings-gospel.html http://www.moviezen.com/celebrity/whitney-houston/biography http://www.ticketamerica.com/whitney_houston_tickets.html

I can't manage to update the page myself but I hope someone will! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboy01 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the above are unreliable sources, if you could locate a reliable source which claims such figure as you are suggesting I'd be more than happy to move her to 200-499 bracket. She's currently listed with a reliable source coming from Austrian Sony/BMG with 140 million in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Austrian bmg is not even run officially they ask someone to write a bio and that's it, it's not a source. The paragraph that claimed the 140 million figure is taken/copied from a PRESS RELEASE by Arista right before the greatest hits release in 2000! Did you read it? It's promoting the Greatest Hits release in 2000. It's by no means a 2008 figure but a 2000 figure. Since then Whitney has released Greatest Hits, Just Whitney, Love Whitney, One Wish, Ultimate Collection, tons of singles, plus sales of her old catalog, etc. Also for example Celine Dion has sold 180 million according to Sony BMG yet on that austrian site they say 200 million but it's false. As for Whitney, on her official site, www.whitneyhouston.com which is run by Arista Records, she's listed to have sold over 170 million copies as of 2002, and that does not include digital sales and it's old numbers. At least you can post that as a link, and I'm sure when the new album is released they will update her sales like it's updated everywhere else (between 200-230 million). I guess wikipedia is stuck in the past... Tons of artists do not get updated sales such as Diana Ross and The Supremes, but believe me they have sold more than most people on that list, over 200 million copies. Just because record labels do not always update or ask for certifications, does not mean that the artist has not ACTUALLY sold more. Your research should be more complete. For you to use a total for Whitney at 140 million is like being stuck in another decade. But then again it's wikipedia, which I guess will never be accurate. Michael Jackson's thriller jumped from 40 million to 105 million because basically record companies or everywhere can claim ANYTHING, sales are not proven, just manipulated at free will. I guess the whole page is pointless, might as well just say there's no such thing as worldwide sales, it's all games that record companies play and there's no proof. But if you were to still keep it, the least you can do is actually make a broader research instead of using old figures and wait for a record company to update sales, especially for older artists. Make a full research yourself and you'll get the CURRENT total sales, that are nothing like that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.38.212 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All record companies have Artist-biography writers and so does Sony/BMG that doesn't mean one should accuse them of practicing such a thing as posting unreliable material within their web sites as you're suggesting. I'm not familiar with the 2000 press-release by Arista you're speaking of but the paragraph on Austrian Sony/BMG which mentions the 140 million records sold is from 2002. If you look at her Certifications within RIAA she could not have sold 30 million copies from 2002 to 2008. I even checked to see whether she's had any Platinum or Gold Records in UK's market after 2000, looks like she hasn't. Same goes for the German market. If I were you, honestly, I would never believe those overinflated numbers posted by record companies, they simply try to draw more attention by those figures in order to be able to push Artists' current or upcoming releases better. And believe me, if the record companies know their artists have sold enough to earn Gold or Platinum they won't sit and wait until RIAA or BPI or Bundesverband Musikindusrie will decide to give them Certifications. Record companies breathe by marketing themselves as sufficiently as they can whether it's pushing record-figures high or bragging of multi-Certifications. I have not come across any other reliable sources so far claiming numbers for Whitney Houston, by if you have one, please leave it here and I will replace it with what we currently have. --Harout72 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... since you can't even read, I'll repeat myself. The link you posted clearly states that it's year 2000, and it was before the release of the greatest hits. Yet you decide to tell me that it's 2002... The paragraph clearly states that it's been written with the release of the Greatest Hits in 2000. Read the first line of the paragraph and also the last line... Sometimes I wonder why I'm even debating this since you comeback to me with such replies dismissing the real date of the article which is obviously a promo of the 2000 greatest hits... But anyway the whole wikipedia list is ridiculous since it puts someone with 450 million in the same league as someone with 200 million, yet it puts someone with 190 million in a different league as someone with 200 million. Badly done. Not to mention that it doesn't even mention the numbers of albums released in order to accomplish the claimed sales. For example someone can release 10000 albums and sell 100 million and yet someone can release 10 albums and sell 100 million. I think it's a very important detail to mention and to know... Also tons of artists have random articles and links as sources where the reporter can claim whatever they want, yet you become picky for other aritsts. As for Whitney, like I said the last time her record company updated her sales was in 2002 before Just Whitney, and it was 170 million records. You can even watch it for yourself in the intro of Diane Sawyer which was given the info by the record company. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnEcMZQD3E Today, she's sold 200 million with the added Just Whitney, One Wish, Artist Collection, Ultimate Collection, many singles released, plus old catalog albums. The record company will recertify and reupdate her sales when the next "studio album" is released, just like they always do, but until then everyone else has updated it her totals. Also not all record companies update sales because they actually have to PAY for the certifications, and not everyone throws numbers every chance they get. But anyway the whole list is a mess to begin with. I think the best thing would be to just put a list of the artists with over 100 million records sold because after that it's a mess. You talk about certifications, well I can definitely bet that you will never find certifications that Frank Sinatra, MIchael Jackson or whoever sold over 500 million records, it's just random numbers throwing... Their real certifications are definitely in the 100-200 million range. Also Nana Mouskouri probably has zero certifications anywhere, yet you ask for Whitney to have "complete" updated certifications in order to dismiss the tons of claims in about 1000 different places that she sold over 200 million records... Actually none of the artists have certifications anywhere close to these totals on the list. What sucks is that people actually take wikipedia as a real source when it's nowhere near close being accurate. But most importantly, the list is badly organised, there isn't any real data for worldwide sales and I believe that after 100 million records you become one of the all-time greats, the rest is basically unproven and inaccurate. It's just random claims, but I believe a simple list of "artists with over 100 million records sold" would end debates and especially the games. After that, it's really pointless and unproven numbers and for certain artists the numbers are DOUBLING from year to year despite barely anything released. Michael Jackson jumping from 40 million to 105 million with Thriller. Yeah like the album sold in the past 5 years more than it's initial release. Please... Also I believe that you do try your best in keeping that list as best as possible, even though I'm sure you have "favorites", and I hope I'm not sounding rude... I just think that even if you try your hardest, it will never be accurate because there's no real source for worldwide sales, including record companies who hype their artists and can throw any numbers. So a different way is to make this list much simpler and simply put "artists with over 100 million records" instead of seperating them into categories that are pretty debatable and hard to prove. You'll always get someone moving artists from category to another, and the fact remains that "wordlwide sales are not accurate and will never be" and the claims just come from all sorts of different places.

WOW you accept random articles like for Cher, Cliff Richard, Rod Stewart, etc. yet amazon.com biography and about a zillion articles for Whitney with either 200 million or 230 million (just google it) is not enough? Random articles are accepted for "certain" artists??? Cher over 200 million??? HAHAHA. Ok I'm outta here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.38.212 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't accuse others of not being able to read when you can't spell words such as "rectify" and "repudiate" yourself. Having said that, now read it once more but this time laying your eyes on the correct part of the entire page, and that is the very last paragraph where it says: "2002 - Die Abrechnung mit Gerüchten, Neidern und Papparazzis" and that's the title of the paragraph. The first sentence is: Wenn Whitney Houston 2003 ihren 40er feiert, wird sie sicherlich ihr bisheriges Leben Revue passieren lassen . And the second sentence is where you need to pay close attention: Eine Bilderbuch-Karriere, die jetzt schon 20 Jahre anhält und ihr mit weit über 140 Millionen verkauften Alben den Verkaufsrekord für Solo-Artists beschert hat - während der Begriff Diva bei anderen Damen wie ein zu großes Kleidungsstück wirkt, sitzt er bei Whitney wie maßgeschneidert. It talks about her Greatest-hits within the paragraph above from the one you need look at. Yes, she may have sold more than 140 million and in fact she may not even have sold 140m, either way we need a reliable source and this one for now does it. The only way to really look at artists sales is to combine all their Silver, Gold, Platinum and Diamond Certifications gotten from all around the world and add them up, and that's the only way to come close to the real sales figure, which is a very difficult task. So this is all we can do here on wikipedia, rely on the most reliable sources found. Unfortunately, you may be right, wikipedia and most of its sources may never be accurate.Harout72 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, english is my 3rd language and I'm not double-checking for spelling so give me a break. Also, the paragraph was posted in 2002, but the details were clearly taken from 2000's promo for the greatest hits. And finally it still doesn't explain why for certain artists you allow random articles posted on unofficial websites, yet for other artists you obsess about one outdated website and ignore everything else. Tons of artists have a random article or a claim on a random website accepted as a source, yet for others such articles are not allowed and denied, because of one old reference. But you don't need to explain it, it's just basically ridiculous. I'll take claims such as on the official biography from amazon.com or ticketamerica.com over a random article from less known sources like those for Cher, Rod Stewart, Cliff Richard, etc. who clearly have sold less than Whitney Houston in whatever research you'll ever make about certifications, sales, etc. In fact, according to my knowledge and close following on sales, from books, internet, charts, certifications, basically every source available, these 3 artists COMBINED probably can't outsell Whitney Houston. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, tons of other artists on this wikipedia list have unreliable sources, yet you accept them. But for Whitney, you become very limited and picky. Finally, I don't expect you to answer me about how you can accept these random articles/sources about certain artists, and deny other articles/sources that are even more impressive for other artists, but you'll probably yet again ignore adressing this. You want to be extremely picky about sources then I accept it, but be picky for everyone not just a few. Right now the sources I see for most artists are so vague, unreliable, unofficial and come from everywhere, that it's kind of weird that you would not do it equally for other artists of the magnitude of Whitney Houston who certainly has huge historic sales that can certainly match/live up to the hundreds of claims of over 200 million everywhere, more than most of the artists in that category (who happen to be there with mostly unreliable/unofficial sources!). Be fair. Either be more open to sources for everyone, or be more strict for everyone. But right now, you are not. You basically accept unreliable ridiculous sources for tons of artists, and for others you become extremely picky and limited. It's not about "you being right or wrong" or "an ego thing", it's not about winning this debate, it's about common sense and being fair to all the artists in how you choose the sources. You can't say "for this artist it has to be an official site even if it's outdated, no other sources are accepted even if they are all over the internet and more recent" and then say "For that other artist, it doesn't matter if it's not from an official site, i accept any random mention from any random reporter on any unofficial site". Do you even see how it basically makes the whole list pointless and unfair? Either accept sales claims that are from good known sources (not fan sites, but sites like in the first post) for EVERYONE, or simply only consider extremely official websites (which means eliminating 80% of the whole list which is full of unofficial claims and mentions on random sites and basically redoing the whole thing). Don't be extremely picky for certain artists and ridiculously vague for others. ---

AND FINALLY, I made a translation from the austrian bmg, and that sentence translates "Her ALBUMS have sold over 140 million". The page is about RECORDS sold, not albums, if you add her SINGLES too, which Whitney is known for being more of a singles artist, it supports that the claims everywhere that she's at 200 million records. To me it's obvious that the person submitting that link didn't like Whitney and they tried to look for a way to put her down with this incomplete data. But of course you will again deny it. Go make the translation, it clearly saids "albums sold over 140 million", not RECORDS which is everywhere else at 200 million total (albums + singles)! Go to www.online-translator.com put this paragraph from german to english

Eine Bilderbuch-Karriere, die jetzt schon 20 Jahre anhält und ihr mit weit über 140 Millionen verkauften Alben den Verkaufsrekord für Solo-Artists beschert hat - während der Begriff Diva bei anderen Damen wie ein zu großes Kleidungsstück wirkt, sitzt er bei Whitney wie maßgeschneidert.

and it clearly states that it's her ALBUMS that sold that much!! Maybe it has something to do with black people being put down by some users. Maybe it's the fans of Mariah and Celine (as you can see below in one of the general posts) that keep putting Whitney down because she's the ultimate diva. But the facts are, the link is INCOMPLETE and talks only about her albums, and her TOTAL RECORDS sales are all over the net at over 200 million copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.38.212 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC) --

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.38.212 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't need to go and translate as you arrogantly suggest, I do speak German, therefore, I'll let you know a little secret that you may never accomplish by literally translating one language into another and in the case of the German language: when they say Alben they don't necessarily mean Albums but rather they talk about his/her sales in whole including albums, singles and compilation releases and here: Alben den Verkaufsrekord, means records in sales. Now, instead of wasting your time trying to get this page accept that Whitney Houston has sold as many records as your unreliable sources indicate above, you should invest the time in locating a reliable source which in the same vein will support your argument here. Find it, leave it here and we can use it, and there shouldn't be any reason not to be able to locate one since you seem quite confident about it. As for the all sources that this page currently is filled with, I every now and then go over them randomly and get rid of those that appear to be unreliable. Having said that, sources like by Amazon.com have no business here which I have not come across, but surely I'll remove it if any of the artists here is supported solely by that site. And lastly, I won't even consider beginning a debate over your racial suggestion as it turns this entire discussion quite futile since nothing of that kind is taking place here. --Harout72 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In german it means that her albums have sold over 140 million records, you forgot to read the beginning of the sentence which clearly mentions her ALBUMS have sold that many records. Not to mention that the whole text was written almost a decade ago. And like I said, for certain artists you accept only official sites even if it's outdated, yet for others you accept random mentions and articles that are nowhere near being official. It means you are not being fair and objective, but you choose on your own terms and preference which is a joke. If your standards were equal for everyone I wouldn't have a problem, but I know for a fact by checking all sorts of certifications, books, sales, statistics, that many artists in that 200 million category (or other categories) do not belong there, they are there because you accept unreliable source when you "choose to". Practice what you preach and stop following the rules only when you want. When the next album of Whitney comes out, we'll see who's right when they update her sales 'officially' like it's been done everywhere else. Until then, keep playing with that list like you want, choosing stupid sources for certain artists and demanding a mention in the bible for others. The whole list is a farce with no real fairness and reliability, treating one artist different from the other. You still ask me for an official mention (which the record company hasn't updated since 2002 which was 170 million records which I even showed you a VIDEO of it), yet you don't even delete the tons of false sources and sales of other artists that ARE NOT from official sources. For Whitney it has to be official, but for the others it's okay if it's not official. And you want me to think that you don't hate Whitney Houston? It clearly said albums and you even tell me it doesn't "necessarly" mean albums, it "could" be albums & singles so it's your choice now? They do mention specifically ALBUMS in record sales, not just record sales. If you truly spoke german, surely you would know that. But for now it's not even the point anymore, if you want to dismiss it then FINE, if you want to dismiss my other sources because they are not official then FINE, but then delete the tons of UNOFFICIAL sources for the other artists because right now you're playing favorism. See ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.38.212 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)




INCLUDE IRON MAIDEN

Iron Maiden have sold over 85 million albums worldwide, yet someone has VANDALISED this article and removed them. There are already 2 topics on this discussion page asking for them to be included; yet NO-ONE has acted.

I do not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia's workings or rules to do this myself. There are many responsible users who are capable of including them, but they have ignored requests to make this a reliable article - twice.

Either someone else does it, or I'll ram them in somewhere and risk mucking the whole thing up. To those who are reading, it's your choice; you can either quickly include them yourselves, or have me put it in incorrectly and constantly reverting back to old edits again and again and again on numerous different computers until someone gets the message and sorts this article out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.94.195 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Major clean up

OK, im going to go through the entire article removing all unreliable claims, the article needs a good purge. There are 2 options;-

  • A) Remove the crap source and replace it with a Fact tag.
  • B) Completely remove the claim if the source is crap.

So we are going to vote on which is the best method and run with it. I'll keep it open for 2 weeks, if there isnt a clear cut "consensus" the timeframe can be extended.

    • Tupac Shakur is listed twice in this list** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.96.230 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask where the beach boys are? I believe they are the #1 selling american band... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.100.102 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

      • How is Journey not on this list? Their albums are a combined 46-times platinum alone in the United States, according to the RIAA website:

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt I just want to see my favorite band get the recognition it has earned for its success. I understand that it is easy to inadvertently overlook someone here and there when making a list like this, and I appreciate you making this information available to the public. Thank you. Ceompc (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote (or "consensus" if you want to be a wiki bureacrat)

  • B --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, but how are you planning on to do that after Rodhullandemu came up with this bad call [1]. He simply opened doors for many unreliable sources as well as many vandals. Now everytime we try to remove a foreign-language source, a major scandal is going to take place, even if the source is crappy. As for me, I'd like to go ahead and remove all unreliable sources including those that turn into bunch of question marks after you click on them.
      • Id say, give me a chance, look how i turned List of best-selling albums worldwide around. Its now a very strong article, id like to do the same here. Non english sources are a sensitive subject here but they are in the fast minority, we can still sort out the other 99% of claims with no controversy. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Let's hope so, I'm with you.--Harout72 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • B Completely remove the claim if the source it crap. --Harout72 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • B Good idea, if a reliable source is found, just add it in. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
How about just following the wikipedia guidelines? What you consider to be "crap" could actually be a reliable reference. As was evident in the recent incident. Moreover, it seems you are taking role as an authority figure within this article, which raises other concerns. 220.253.148.207 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No really, i have some experience getting these articles up to a reasonable standard. Because someone decides to actually sort an article out that doesnt mean they OWN the article. We would only allow sources that would be accepted in a Featured List review, which is the ultimate goal of this article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that only 1 claim is removed at a time with a clear edit summary to say why. It will be easier for edits to moniter what is being removed. If someone opposes a deletion they can bring it back to the talk page for consensus. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


I would look at the omission of the American rock group Journey. They have 45 million album sales in the US alone and would at least make the 50 - 74 million list (see www.RIAA.com and click on "Gold and Platinum" for historic US album sales) when including worldwide album sales (possibly the 75 million + list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.111.63 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC) U2 has sold 170 million albums!!its a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayu2bono (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

200 million to 500 million records

Has anyone else noticed that the lines of this section are really fat in comparison to the other benchmarks? Can someone sort that, i dont understand why its happened. Cheers. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's done. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


FALSE INFORMATION

Metallica has sold 100 million records so change it to 100 million to 199million —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unholybuddha (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Queen has sold more than 300 million records,so it wouldn't be in 100-199 million records,so change it!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.79.16 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of the information on this list are falses. Michael Jackson has NOT sold 500 million records worldwild, he has sold 750 million, not even Frank Sinatra, who has sold less than 15 million records in USA (making the 500 million seller status impossible). Jackson has sold a maximum of 750 million records across the world.

For the 200 million seller status, we don't need to say that Whitney Houston has NOT sold over 200 million records worwild. Houston's sales are less than 150 million (130 million is the right information). Celine Dion has sold 200 million (with singles sales) and Mariah Carey the same thing. So why is Carey in the category of 100 to 150 million sellers if she has sold more than 166 million records and 200 with single sales?

And another ridiculous thing. ABBA has sold more than 300 million records? Totally impossible. Their sales in the US are less than 15 million (12 million maximum) so their 300 million seller status is totally, but TOTALLY impossible. They have not sold more than 150 million records in career. In fact, I'm not sure if the 100 million status is right for ABBA. So make the right corrections and stop to put protections to protect false and fanatic information.

Correction: Just because an artist has not sold tens of millions in the US does not mean they have not sold the stated 100 million + on this list. There are other markets besides the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.229 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you, Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.11.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet, somewhat contrary to your assertions, all the figures cited in the article are supported by verifiable sources, and you say otherwise. What psychic powers do you have that are denied to the rest of us? --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that some of the sources cited do not even look remotely credible, I must also bring attention to the Elvis Presley citation. He is listed as over 500 million records, however a quick check at the citation indicates that he is listed as 1 billion+ in the source. The source is perhaps not credible, since it's from the official website, but did someone fail to take into account an extra 500 million records when putting Elvis up on this page? After all, 1 billion implies something quite different to "500 million or more". At least do a split of the record sales differently. JFonseka people are forgetting that RECORDS mean BOTH albums and singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.161.10 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Elvis sold more than 500 million albums:-

His sales are very much, 2 billion in excess, In Guinness book's 1970's edition it was written that he has sold 1 billion albums, its now 2 billion and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


JORDAN HAS FOUND SOME PROBLEMS--- ok so ABBA has sold over 300 million records it was said on the ABBA biography on the Biography channel and The Bee Gees have sold more than 220 million records, it says that on their own page plus it has been said on the Biography channels episode on the Brothers Gibb group. It has been estimated that the Bee Gees' record sales total more than 220 million,[2] easily making them one of the best-selling music artists of all-time. so change the bee gees from the 100-199 million to 200 million+ list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.200.27 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(PEOPLE FORGOT THAT RECORDS MEAN BOTH ALBUMS AND SINGLES - THE RIAA LIST OF BIGGEST SELLERS JUST SAY BIGGEST ALBUMS SELLING ARTISTS...) and abba isn't not that popular in usa, but in a lot of countries you can find that their records are one of the best selling there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.67.30 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not To Rain On The Parade But Michael Jackson Only Got 230000000 Sales And Sinatra 380000000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.5.90 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

      • The information on Abba is incorrect. The have not sold 300 million records. With singles and albums combined the have most likely sold about 140 million worldwide. Their sales in the U.S. (albums and singles together) add up to about 15 million. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

We need to clean up this article with better sources. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See my preposal above. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay

I'm pretty sure British band Coldplay have now sold over 50 million units following the release of their fourth studio album Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends which stormed to number one across the world. The single Viva la Vida also reached number one in UK and USA. Their previous albums were Parachutes in 2000, A Rush of Blood to the Head in 2002 and X&Y in 2005 which all reached number one and collected many awards including Grammys, MTV awards and Brit awards. They sold over 35 million units on their first three albums. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that a band has sold 15 million albums in about a month and a half? Michael Jackson never even sold that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaremathras (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They've sold over 40 million albums as of today, so they're not quite there. Just wait for another album, and then they're on here. Won't be long till Radiohead are here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.94.195 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Record Company or Label based sources

I believe Record Company based sources such as these [2], [3] should not be removed as most of news magazines/papers do rely on sales figures provided by artists' record companies. --Harout72 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbert von Karajan

For some reason the original source for him, which can be seen in the archive below, has been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive6

Should that one not suffice, here is another. This time it's from The Times:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4287949.ece

"his albums have sold more than 200 million copies"

The 200+ figure is also mentioned in the report of a WIPO judgment from 2001:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1578.html

"More than 200 Million CDs and traditional vinyl long playing records have been sold of Herbert von Karajan's work."

I hope all this counts as sufficient to keep him in the 200+ million section. Thanks.

See Also

What does everyone think of maybe a "see also" list on this page. For example

  • Best Selling Album
  • Artist Who Hit number one in the Us

Would that be good or unnecessary? I noticed in the past there used to be a list like that. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen WorldWide Sales

Bruce Springsteen has sold more then 100 million worldwide. 63,5 million in the Us, only.

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt

From greasylake and Worldwide albums net:

Greetings from Asbury Park: 3,500,000

The Wild the Innocent and The E street Shuflee: 3,500,000

Born to Run: 10,000,000

Darkness of the Edge of town: 5,500,000

The River: 10,000,000

Nebraska: 4,500,000

Born in the USA: 29,000,000

Live 75/85: 7,500,000

Tunnel of Love: 8,500,000

Human Touch: 4,500,000

Lucky Town: 4,000,000

XXPlugged: 1,500,000

Greatest Hits: 15,000,000

The Ghost of Tom Joad: 3,000,000

Tracks: 1,000,000

18 Tracks: 1,000,000

Live in New York City: 1,500,000

The Rising: 5,000,000

Devils & Dust: 2,000,000

Essential: 2,500,000

From United World Chart and Worldwide albums net:

We shall overcome: 2,000,000

Magic: 2,500,000

Total Aprox: +127,500,000

Personally, I don't doubt that he's sold as many records as you claim, but so far no one has provided a reliable source that states such figure for Bruce Springsteen. --Harout72 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok Harout72 your argument is; 63,5 million copies in the Us, 0 copies outside the us. This criteria is absurd. The world is most than one country.

T.Rex

Why do you keep adding this source when at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it was thought to be neither reliable nor acceptable. I know that you are aware of that decision because I notified you about it at your talk-page --Harout72 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The liner notes of the album were taken from a media article written in 1977 before the premiere of Marc Bolan's TV show, making it a reliable and independent, third-party source. The fact that it was later re-published by Demon Records (now Demon Music Group) and licensed by Granada Televison and Bolan's record company, Wizard (Bahamas), clearly makes it a more reliable and credible source than a small local newspaper whose claim is only based upon the peak of Bolan and T.Rex's commercial success (a grossly incorrect claim, I might add). Also, nowhere on that noticeboard was it definitively stated that the source I have added is not acceptable. And, Harout, check over your additions in this edit once more, will you? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask you something, why are you so attached to only this one source if a band such as T.Rex has really sold 200 million units (at least as you claim so) whereas all other artists who've sold over 100 million records can be found in many reliable sources, in other words, why are you having such difficult time locating a source which we all could agree on. As for what's been said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it's quite clear that in the case of List of best-selling music artists your suggested source should not be used. By the way, if you're referring to my reversion because it also contains Whitney Houston relying on a source coming out of LastFM, I will remove it as it's not a reliable source, at the time I was only trying to deal with your persistence over that source.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Harout72 again ignores the discussion when someone gives a fair explanation. Moreover, providing more unreliable references to the list. 220.253.145.57 (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply to your points tomorrow (I can't right now), but I will take the time to point out that the lead section of this article says, "Sources are record labels, newspaper articles or manual addition of figures from various official sources. This means that these figures should be considered claims, not facts." I have presented a claim which has been published by both a record label and a newspaper. What reasons are there to exclude it from this article? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to have a discussion when the other person doesn't want to reply to you, Harout. — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should simply relist it at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the people over there to lay their opinions again by bringing it to their attention that the source has been posted there once before but you disagree or (as you say above) you're not sure of their final decision. You should prove them the reliability of the source and perhaps provide a scan of the article as from what I understand they don't accept it as reliable, otherwise we might start having people here claiming all sorts of figures they've once read somewhere. --Harout72 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tupac's Real Numbers?

He's currently listed twice on the page, with neither one having a citation. So, which number is the correct one? TheGoogler (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wei Wei

Reference for Wei Wei [4], someone responsible please add it into the article.

I noticed the article suffered mass vandalism again. I see Pearl Jam has been added to the list, with no reliable reference again (same as many other artists) I suspect Harout72 is at fault again, along with the bully tactics, although I couldn't be bothered checking. 220.253.13.110 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful throwing such an accusation around if I were you since I'm one of the very few people not adding any artists without sources. In fact, since you constantly suffer of accusing users without scrutinizing their motives, perhaps you should then check and see the recent history-summary. As for those artists that you see are left without sources, well, that's because sources for those artists were removed by someone else as they were thought to be unreliable. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Harout72, you have done nothing but destroy this article. Which includes sneakily removing references for certain artists, and continually adding certain musicians with no reliable reference. This is from "carefully inspecting" the history-summary during vandalism issues from last year and many months ago, and when you fanatically tried removing foreign references and artists. Like I said, I can't be bothered checking this time. I provided a solid ENGLISH reference for Wei Wei, so she can't be removed, and that is all I care about. I see artists like Pearl Jam snuck in with the same fake reference you provided last time! Quote: "I'd be careful throwing such an accusation around if I were" Yeah whatever! 220.253.200.249 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could agree with you, unfortunately, it would simply be a waste of my time to even think about arguing with someone who continuously gets lost within worlds.
P.S.
I happen to be a person providing sources also for foreign artists within this article. --Harout72 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Oh I see, well that kinda contradicts your viewpoints at the top of this talk page, and your viewpoint relating to foreign references in the archive. In addition to your autocratical editing, and dictating the reliability of references. I think your edit located here [5] is the perfect example. Again attacking Alla and Wei Wei, and adding four artists to the list with no references! 220.253.39.203 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

U2

Wrong information: U2 have sold more than 150 million albums accourding to various relible sources, such as CNN, MTV and the band's website itself. To say that they have sold between 75-99 million albums is completely wrong due to the fact that the article that acts as proof of this claim is 10 years old, written during the Pop Era. Please recitfy.

I updated the sources of U2 with reliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Queen

Queen sold more than 300 million almbums and singles worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.164.209 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) THIS STILL HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. IT IS CLAIMED THAT 320-500 MILLION HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE WORLD BY CHANNEL FOUR. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE RECTIFY THIS INFORMATION.

Proposal

As an artist's total Worldwide sales can never be approximated 100% accurately, and because of this there are often 'edit wars' over which section of this page should be listed in, I think the layout of the list of best-selling fiction authors should be implemented into this list. Not only would this defuse the debates and supposed vandalism which occurs on this list, it would also add a greater validity to the list since multiple sources will be used. Opinions? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As the original author of that article, I'm flattered and obviously support this proposal. However, I'm probably not very objective here, so I'll let other people decide... Fram (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
None of these lists should be on the wikipedia to begin with. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but it would be more useful if you gave some arguments. Fram (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" Sure, best of charts, and lists are quite encyclopedic. (notice the sarcasm) This type of article is trivial nonsense, and provides no education value. 220.253.10.5 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It provides enough education value for news outlets like Fox to report on and compare best-selling artists and albums[6], or to compile lists like ours for the Sydney Morning Herald[7]. The music industry is big business and in the past, record sales were the most important part of it. The best-selling music artists are the power players, the ones with the most "votes" from the public and thus the most weight. It is factual information from reliable sources about a topic that often comes in the media. It has historical value, just like a list of most expensive paintings or a list of largest companies has. A random list, or a list of coincidences (list of songs with four or more "A's" in the title) is trivia without educational value. I don't think this list can be compared to such nonsense. Educational value? When you read in the newspaper or in a press release or whatever about "X, one of the best-selling artists of all time with 3 million records sold", then this list helps you put those figures into perspective. It is a baseline to make comparisons against when an article claims e.g. that Alicia Keys is "one of the best-selling artists of all time"[8]. The purpose of an encyclopedia is that people can check things they read, and this list, while of course incomplete, serves this purpose and is for the moment the best, most comprehensive list of this kind available on the Internet.Fram (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You just wrote a load of rubbish. 220.253.111.6 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, add Raphael as a best selling artist. He sold more than 50 million records

It is stated here:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(cantante)#Disco_de_Uranio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.102.225.176 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

750 million or over

Ok I have done some research and 3 music artists have sold more then 750, they are the beatles with 750, michael jackson with 750, and elivs. This should added to the list. Also change the 500 million or more to 500-750. This is the truth someone please make this correction as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet, there are many more reliable references that state Michael Jackson hasn't sold more than 500 million, including sources from his record company. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

+ Bing Crosby is second best selling music artist after Elvis(2 billion), Bing has got 600 million - 900 sales, so Don't forget him.

who cares, did you guys read that is say just "500 million records or more " OR MORE FOR CHRIST's SAKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.67.30 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone tell me where Dolly Parton sold over 100 million records

Dolly Parton does not appear on RIAA's list of best selling artists over 10 million total sales in the USA. She has 6 platinum albums only. Her sales numbers are as inflated as her bra size! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.239.112 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RIAA certification and total album sales are two completely different numbers. A record label has to pay to get certification. If they don't pay, albums don't get certified. Just because an artist has a low certification from the RIAA, that doesn't reflect their worldwide sales figures. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)



What about Metallica they've sold 100 millon it says so on their wikipedia page and they are inthe 50 millon to 75 millon page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.239.171 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is written on their wikipedia page doesn't make it true. Anyone can edit the wikipedia, thus take whatever you read with a grain of salt. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List record sales by nationality?

I could not find a list of sales by artists' nationality (answering the question "Have the British, per capita, made more records than the French?". I have compiled this list, using the data on this page and List_of_countries_by_population. The first few lines look like this

List of best-selling music nationalities
Artists' Nationality Records sold Population Records per capita
United Kingdom 6,526,000,000 60,975,000 107.0
Ireland 274,000,000 4,422,100 62.0
Austria 382,000,000 8,340,924 45.8
U.S. 13,196,000,000 304,952,000 43.3
Sweden 362,000,000 9,215,021 39.3

Should I add such a table to this page, or create a new page? SmirkingMan 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not here, and preferably not on another page either, since this is original research based on limited data. If you can find sources stating the total number of records sold for artists from a country, then you can start on such a page. Basing this solely on the best-selling artists ignores the gigantic number of records sold by successful but not that successful artists. Fram (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the advice, taken. That said, such a comparison (after much Googling) doesn't seem to exist, and even if the data I used is patchy, it is the best free data around, and IMHO the results are not entirely void of interest - I personally was surprised to see Ireland and Austria high on the list. Where, would you suggest, should I publish such OR (on my own personal website, obviously, but that's a much harder place to for people to find than the likes of Wickipedia)? Smirkingman (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This will perhaps sound particularly unhelpful, but I have no idea where such info would be most welcome. Such lists are fun and interesting, but I have no idea of a well-known websited dedicated to such stuff (a kind of Wikilists). Perhaps someone else here can help you. Fram (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Queen II In the queen article on wikipedia it is claimed that 320 million albums have been sold. in a documentary on channel four (uk) up to 500 million albums sold have been claimed. someone should change this information as 180 mill is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.174.121 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dalida and Adamo

i'm not a registered user, so I can't edit this article, but i'd like to point out that these singers (Dalida, aka Iolanda Cristina Gigliotti, and Salvatore Adamo) were italians born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.47.116 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At the same time italian singer Mina now got swiss citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.47.116 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We are to mention the country artists represent, and in the case of Adamo for example, he represents Belgium.--Harout72 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
so it's a different policy, on the italian (and french) wikipedia page we refer to the "cultural influence" and the nationals markets involved by the sales of discs. Btw, Dalida nevere represented Egypt, she always sang in italian or french..(as Adamo did, always french or italian)..

Another example would be Enrique Iglesias who was born in Spain, who now represents U.S. As for Dalida, you are right, she should not be listed as an artist of Egypt as it appears that she has begun her career in France and that's where she's been living throughout most of her life. However, I prefer leaving her as it's listed currently (Egypt and France) since it already covers France. --Harout72 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

QUEEN

QUEEN - More than 300 000 000 copies. Where they are?

There sales are 130 million in excess.

Tom Jones

Where is Tom Jones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.83.55 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

where is iron maiden?

iron maiden used to be in number 51 or above and suddenly they disappeared from the list!what happened and now in number 51 are the "eagles"????even if someone dislikes iron maiden that doesn't mean he/she can erase them from the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem13 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

Shouldn`t they be in here? They`ve sold somewhere around the 85 million mark... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaytanic1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix should be on 50 million to 75 million records, with claims of over 50 million; plus the fact that Electric Ladyland, or any number of Jimi Hendrix albums should be in on best-selling albums of all-time page.

About jimi :-

He has sold 22 million albums in america, his labels never got much sales out side, so his sales are like 25 - 30 millon, not more...

Iron Maiden

wikipedia = Shit! Where is Iron Maiden??? over 85 million...

Where Is Tupac?

Tupac shoul deffinitely be on this list with over 75 million albums sold.

Whitney Houston

Whitney Houston has nowhere near sold around 200 million copies and the reference given in this article is an unworthy music site with a lot of false information with biased profiles. She should be under the 100 million and more category where she truly belongs. DesmondDH (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Osmonds have not sold over 100 Million records

On this page the Osmonds are listed as selling over 100 million records and Donny Osmond is listed as selling between 75 - 99 million records.

The fact is the Osmonds combined with all of Donny Osmond's solo releases, the Donny and Marie releases and the Marie Osmond and Jimmy Osmond solo releases they have sold about 100 million records. Therefore making it untrue to say that the Osmonds alone have sold over 100 million records.

Donny Osmond is listed for having sold 75-99 million records when in fact his portion of the sales comes to about 40 million. The Osmonds (aka The Osmond Brothers) have probably sold about 60 million albums total when you subtract all the solo albums and Donny and Marie albums sold.

Therefore the listing for them should be Osmonds/Donny/Marie if they are to be included in the 100 million records category and Donny Osmond should be deleted from the 75-99 million.

Read the following references... http://www.osmondmania.com/Discography2/protected_Discography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Carpenters have sold near 150 million records

The Carpenters should be added to this article as they have sold about 150 million records worldwide. In the U.S. alone they have sold over 30 million albums and 18 million singles bringing their U.S. total to near 50 million.

Here is a reference page for their sales: http://www.richardandkarencarpenter.com/biography.htm

The following page shows Carpenters as selling 24.5 million units in the U.S. http://riaa.org/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt This list only includes their albums and singles which have been certified gold, platinum and multi-platinum. This does not take into account their singles and albums which sold under the certifiable amount which they had several albums which sold between 300,000 to 499,000 copies each (Ticket To Ride", "Passage", "Made In America" and "Lovelines")... the sales of these albums are not counted in the 24.5 million total. In the 70's a single had to sell 2 million to be certified platinum and 1 million to be certified gold, Carpenters had many singles which sold just under the 1 million mark which are not counted in this 24.5 million total. well they had a few singles (such as "Goodbye To Love", "It's Going To Take Sometime", "I Won't Last A Day Without You", "Only Yesterday", "Solitaire", "There's A Kind Of Hush" and "Touch Me When We're Dancing") each of these sold between 500,000 to 900,000 copies, but are not counted in this total of 24.5 million. They also have a good amount of albums which have sold between 150,000 to 299,000 copies each including; Karen Carpenter (solo), "As Time Goes By", "Singles 1969-1981" and "Interpretations"... and several singles between the 300,000 to 499,000 mark which were; "Ticket To Ride", "I Need To Be In Love", "Goofus", "All You Get From Love Is A Love Song", "Calling Occupants...", "Sweet Sweet Smile" and "Those Good Old Dreams"... and still yet a few singles and albums which sold under these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to include The Carpenters within the section of 50-74 we need a third party reliable source. This here won't do as it's directly coming from the artist's site. The 24 million figure in RIAA's listing should include the number of all albums/singles sold within the States as it's normally the case with all other artists on that list. --Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say Harout, but the number of sales that RIAA lists for Carpenters and the other artists on that list is only for sales of their recordings which have been certified gold, platinum and multi-platinum in the U.S. This leaves out a good portion of sales of recordings by each of these artists which did not receive a certification, which in many cases can be 10 million and up. At the top of that particular RIAA list it even says Certified Units in Millions.

The Carpenters do not belong in the 50-74 million category, they belong in the 100 million category as they have sold around 150 million units to date.

Here are a few more references which state Carpenters have sold more than 100 million units.

http://www.hitparadehalloffame.org/2008/ArtistPages/Carpenters.html

http://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/news/2008/feb/03/yesterday-once-more/

http://www.carpenterarts.org/carpenterexhibit.html

If you are to hold to the criteria of needing a reliable third party source than you must rethink the listing of the Osmonds and Donny Osmond... one source is the Malaysia Star (hardly reliable) and the other is Donny Osmond's site. If you read what each of these state is that the sales for the Osmonds combined with Donny osmond, Marie Osmond, Donny and Marie and Jimmy Osmond, their sales total around 100 million. That is what is stated on the Osmonds web site. The Donny Osmond site says he's released 54 albums, when in actuality those 54 albums include the albums he's released with the Osmond Brothers and in the duo Donny and Marie, so again that toal of 80 million is a combination of several acts together, not just Donny Osmond solo. I would guestimate that Donny Osmond has sold about 40 million units solo. I think there needs to be more consistency in the listing on this page... what stands for one artist should stand for all artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I prefer relying on the numbers coming from RIAA's list is because unlike the figures released by artists' record companies which quite often are overinflated for promotional purposes, the RIAA does not advertise such misinterpretation. This is why we are able to come across very few reliable sources who rarely dare to include sales figures within their articles unless they thoroughly study the total number in sales. Fortunately, record companies present less inflated figures than the ones we see within artists' official sites which somehow makes us to rely on them. I understand The Carpenters have released 11 albums throughout their career the sales of whose have declined towards the end of '70s which makes the 24 million figure presented by RIAA quite logical. I personally, checked to see how they've charted within other large music markets like UK's or Germany's. They've had various hit albums in the UK but have barely appeared on the German album chart, I doubt they've sold as many as 150 million records. I am, however, going to place them within the bracket of 100-199 million using the first two sources that you have provided which seem somewhat reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As for The Osmonds and Donny Osmond, I am open to replacing the Malaysia based source with something more reliable, personally I highly doubt that 80 percent of the artists here on this page have sold as many records as their refs. may suggest that includes The Osmonds as well as Donny Osmond individually. This source, however, seems like could have been created by anybody, I'm going to remove Donny Osmond from the list for now until someone provides us with a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Nirvana need to be re-added

Nirvana used to be on the list, since they have easily sold over 50 million records world wide. Some nirvana hater has obvousily removed them. Nirvana should be added on again. If you need sources, here are some:

Yahoo

411 Mania

bebo profile


Even in the Nirvana article it says they have sold over 50 million records worldwide. Do the math, at least 26 million copies of Nevermind sold worldwide. Bleach and incesticide at least 1 million records sold EACH in ONLY USA. At least 4 million copies of In Utero in the USA alone. 6 Million copies of MTV Unplugged in USA alone. And 1 million for From The Muddy Banks of a Wishkah, in USA alone. That adds up to at least 39 Million records sold, with most of those albums only including the USA sales. I'm sure theres easily been 11 Million records sold elsewhere in the world. And the source for all these findings? Right on Wikipedia itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_discography

How contradictating. Too add these Album sales up more accuartley, again only including USA sales for all albums expect Nevermind, which includes world sales. The total comes to 41.624 Million albums sold. Then considering that the UK has certificated several albums as Platinum or Gold, these can be added up too, 300,000 Platinum and 100,000 for Gold. This brings the total up to 43.024 Million records sold but this does not include all albums' sales figures in the UK.

Since Nirvana were included before, they should clearly be included again. There are enough claims for them to be in the list and there are even enough firgures to show they should be included.

--Kennethswis (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Britney Spears

It says that Britney Spears had been active since 1999-present, but her first single was released in 1998. Would be great if this mistake would be corrected.

Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden needs to be added back to the list they have sold over 100 million albums, the source is on the Iron Maiden article.

Melkortheevil (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Genre(s)

On the main article, it is written that Michael jackson has sang in Pop / R&B / Rock / Soul / Dance / Disco / Motown / Funk / New Jack Swing.

Where he has never sang R&B, Soul, Disco or Funk in whole career.

Please correct it.

Where is James Brown???

James Brown, The God Father of Soul has sold over 100 million albums worldwide. Here are some sources:-

http://www.livinblues.com/bluesrooms/jamesbrown.asp http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/cosmo11/jamesbrown.htm

Mocedades ?!?!

This Spanish group has sold, by many accounts, over 300 million records worldwide since their start in 1970. They have recorded over 30 platinum selling albums as well as many multi-platinum singles, live albums and other compilations. They are known all over the Spanish speaking world and are considered the biggest thing to ever come out of Spain long before July Churches (Julio Iglesias) ever made his appearance.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_5&oldid=1144432821"