Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Methodology

As has been pointed out, this list is lacking in the kind of scientific rigor that is required of a Wikipedia article. We know that artists, fans, and promoters often make outrageous claims about how many records an artist may have sold, and that lazy journalists often repeat these figures without checking them, but it seems that this article simply accepts the highest claim.

I have previously tried to highlight this by citing the example of Alla Pugacheva, who is undoubtedly not the fifth-biggest-selling worldwide recording artist, as this list asserts (Reliable statistics for Russian sales do not exist; she is not the mos,t popular Russian star by a huge margin, and yet there is not a single other Russian artist on the list). There are many others here: Cliff Richard, for one, may well have been the British Elvis and an enduring star, but his sales have been restricted largely to the UK. 260 million would require him to sell over 5 million records each year for each of the 50 years he has been performing; where are the British industry statistics supporting this? I doubt also that Nana Mouskouri, while indeed extremely prolific and well known in a number of major markets, has outsold Michael Jackson.

I am almost tempted to flag the article for lack of neutrality, simply because it seems to repeat rather wild assertions as facts (whatever the disclaimer at the beginning). Unless, of course, we can agree on a standard method for accepting sales figures. ProhibitOnions 16:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


I would agree entirely - I think we need to come up with a standard. IE if it doesnt come from an official source then it doesnt get posted here, and the artists site can not be considered an official source. Also we should as a standard, I dont know how others would feel about this, but we should use the lowest available figure, Also singles should not be counted. There are some people that despite there claims shouldnt be in the top 100 let alone the top 10, like Johnny Mathis, and Neil Young. I can see Nana Mouskouri selling 100 million albums, but not the large number currently attributed to her. Celine Dion, Maiha Carry and Madonna, as well as MJ are really the only ones with hard numbers (I believe they were all given awards at one time or another for high sales).
Also we should use firm numbers but not estimates. So we know from the award she won last year Celine Dion has sold 175 million albums but it could be more because they are not really sure of all her sales in some countries (particularly underdeveloped french ones where they could be much higher than stated). In this instance I propose we would use the 175 million as a firm number, and put next to the firm number an astrict meaning that it could be higher. So use the best most reliable firm number. Elivis was popular but his sales have really been overstated here.--Meanie 17:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
And what is an "official source"?, anything can be debated! Also, Cliff Richards success has not been restricted to isn't the UK. Just because he didn't make it that big in America, so what? The entire world it's just the UK and USA. Cliff is big all throughout Europe, and also in Australia and New Zealand. So to say his sales "are largely restricted to the UK" (a country where he has had over 100 hit singles and more than 60 hit albums anyway) is complete and utter nonsence. 195.93.21.40 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This last post proves my point rather well. Every fan, it seems, wants to believe a favourite artist is among the world's top sellers. I cited the cases of three artists on this list who, while popular, appear here with what should be obvious are highly exaggerated sales figures. I too like Cliff Richard, and know that he has some fans in the rest of Europe (although he is hardly among the top-selling artists) and has had hits such as "Dreaming" in North America, even if his music isn't widely appreciated there. He is indeed an enduring figure in NZ and Australia as well, although the 20 million people there haven't each bought 10 of his records. Thus "largely confined to the UK" where he is something of an icon. But even there, he hasn't outsold, say, Pink Floyd; he went from 1965 to 1979 without a major hit single.
So, again, the difficulty of compiling exacting figures shouldn't lead us to take fan figures seriously, even if they are repeated in mainstream media. There exist industry figures and awards for top-selling artists, and these should form the basis of most estimates. See further down this page for a link to an interesting analysis of Elvis's true sales; now apply this kind of disintersted analysis to all the other artists listed here. ProhibitOnions 20:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Actually i am not a "huge" fan of Cliff Richard., just know what I am talking about. His sales are not "largely restricted" to the UK. Cliff has sold more singles in the UK than anyone and, yes, he has outsold Pink Floyd in total sales in the UK. You claim Cliff went from 1962 to 1972 without a major hit in the UK... what rubbish, he had 6 top 10 singles in 1964 alone!

Futhermore, Pink Floyd have gone much longer without successfull albums than Cliff Richard, so you have proven that you're the one cutting the facts to suit your own version of events, even though when the facts are looked at, your claims are proven false. Also, Elvis' sales are not largely over stated here, looking at world charts from when he started to the presnet, there is no reason to doubt he sold at the very very least 500 million records. You also prove you don't know what you are talking about one bit, by claiming the industry are the "most reliable" source. Common sense shows, it even says here on this page, that the industry exaggerated sales for publicity. So, the "figures from the industry" you quote like they are bible verses mean nothing too and that comftably includes any statsitic from the R.I.A.A 195.93.21.40 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack, anonymous user. Sigh. ProhibitOnions 21:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No more personal than you were being by repsonding directly to me and trying to make out I was just trying to beef up the stats. However, I proved that you are cutting facts to suit yourself - something you tried to accuse me of- and not basing your claims on reality. 195.93.21.40 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

We need to rate people by statistics stated by organizations like RIAA, most countries have em. I know Canada has one, but so does the UK and Austrilia and many other markets. Once you take these offical sources, you dont take anything else into account. We know celine, madonna, mariah, MJ, and the beatles are all in the right ball park but there are some other people who are not in that ball park, and not only that are playing a whole different ball game, and while they should still be on this list they should be 100 places lower.

No we shouldn't. This page states that industry stats are no more reliable than anythign else. The R.I.A.A are not reliable themselves. For instance, the ungraded Led Zeppelin's sales in mid-1990s, then again by 20-30 million a few years later on the same albums a few years later. Nice few years for Zeeppelin eh? They sold more albums than anyone in America, withot having a top 100 disc. (lol). Unless someone from the R.I.A.A, and other "industry sources", goes around the record factory, and and counts every CD shipped out then there stats, are NOT 100% accurate at all. Where do the RIAA get their "ship out" figures from? Record company say so! An article like this should reflect some sort of truth, not be a list of industry hype. Your idea is just as faultless, if not more so, than the system that is already in practice. You might think the RIAA figures are gospel, but they are not. 195.93.21.40 05:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While their numbers are not the best, you have to understand what you are not understanding. We need a standard and a baseline. Right now a lot of figures are out of wack. As where if we go with the recording industry "official" stats we are measuring everyone by the same stick. Right now we are measuring people by the stick that their fans are comming in here and creating. At least it would create a sense of everyone is measured by the same fair stick. --Meanie 15:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


It's not a "fair stick" when the figures are not correct. Your claim it's fair when the figures are not right is just not true. A lot of figures mught be out of wack now, even more will be so if this system is put into practice. A lot of older artists for example will not have sales certified. Why should they be precluded from the list? Also, plenty of albums are not certified because they never reach the 500,000 sales. Yet they may sell 300,000 or 400,000. Why should those sales not be added on to totals, especially if an act has had 100 albums make that figure? You fail to understand this "measuring by the same stick" is in no way definitive and will still use a lot of false, over the top and hyped info. It will solve nothing and is a pointless excersise. 195.93.21.40 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that it will bring everyone into the same bloody ball park, where they currently do not reside. Some statistics take into account singles, and some dont. There is no standard. Any standard from here would be an improvement. As this list is right now it should be deleted, because there are too few official sources. Or we could play your way, and REMOVE any artist that does not have a source listed, or they are listed as having their discography as their source instead of the horses mouth. How about this as a standard, if it does not come from their offical website, or their record label it didnt happend. We cant have someone here because they might have sold a certain number of albums, If we dont have concrete information they should not be on this list. Alla whatever from Russia, has concrete information, Encyclopedia Britanica, which is widely considered the most complete and accurate encyclopedia. Some dispute her numbers but if its in the Britanica you can bet its checked. I say if it doesnt come from another non community encyclopedia, the artists oficial site, or their record label it didnt happen. Because you cant publish something as a FACT in an encyclopedia if you have no means of backing it up. --Meanie 04:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it was checked that thoroughly. Who would they have check it with? It would either be the record label, or they would have gone to the homes of the people who owned these records. The second virtually impossible. The first is open to bias. The guinness book of records who are also a respected source take industry say so too, even on albums that have be claimed to have sold more since their peak success, which is highly not true. If you want a list like this, you have to look at more than one source. Not just industry claims, not just the RIAA, not just other encyclopaedias. A cross section of sources is used on any good list, and unless you are going to look back in the history of the entire music business, check every claim against every sales chart and look at files about every acts back catalogue sales then that's the only way to get this as accurate as possible. The suggestion we only use selected sources is not going to take this anywhere. Also what do you consider another encyclopaedia? Do Music Who's who books count? Why dose a statistic mean more on an official website than an autobiography? There is no proper way to do this. Any sales info is prone to abuse, no matter how highly respected the source is. The suggested method will not put "people in the same ball park", it will just allow artists that have been hyped to look better on the list than thorough research will ever show. Sadly I (and the rest of us i'm sure) don't have the time and money available it would take to research every chart and read every claim to make this list more realistic, therefore this list will never be a real list and any method we use will be as it is now, open to hype and incorrect figures. 195.93.21.40 07:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Meanie, that Britannica piece is unfortunately not accurate, and if you note it is not an encyclopedia entry (which would have been checked thoroughly), just a human-interest "news" story on their website, which is not the same thing. As I've mentioned below, I would be surprised indeed if Alla Pugacheva had sold more than 100 million records of any description. Even her husband, who would likely exaggerate his wife's sales figures, has claimed "only" 140 million. ProhibitOnions 10:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Most respected sources WON'T even check the sales info. And with all the hype from the industry and fans alike over the years who can blame them for taking any old figure and hanging their heads in despair?!

Well since there is no way we can get this list to be even slightly accurate as is the case of many other articles and lists, because of the lack of available unbiased soruces. For example it oculd neve be as unbiased as a list on oilreserves. I say we slate this article for deletion, and if I knew how I would definatly tag it for NPOV. --Meanie 04:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You could nominate it for deletion, yes, or like with so many articles it could be mentioned that is list is disputed, like so many other articles here state, there is already a disclaimer on the page stating that this page should be "taken with a large grain of salt". 195.93.21.40 11:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with ProhibitOpinion here. For years now I have searched for information of worldwide record sales of various artists. It has become a hobby of mine and while it is often difficult to get any idea whatsoever, sometimes I am able to get a ballpark figure. Based on this research, I have to say the numbers on this list sound ridiculous. There are many artists who have sold far more records than they should have and checking out some of the sources, many of them are not even close to being reliable. For instance, to use an example PO gave, Cliff Richard's numbers are not just inaccurate but resemble a multiple of what they should be.... and I've lived in the UK all my life. It's not to say that people cannot be big outside the US but it is to say, the market that Richard "tapped" was not big enough to supply him those sales no matter how big he was, short of us considering that huge portions of the population bought his albums. While I'm sure he had great success in New Zealand etc, these populations still don't supply the numbers. To hit 200,000,000 he would have to have been (in the world outside the US) the most popular music artist EVER. He's not.
I would say more should be done to sort the article out but I don't believe that's the problem; it's simply too hard to provide the figures needed for this chart to be properly compiled. If it could feasibly have been done, a professional organisation or academic study would have undertaken it long ago. Instead we have over-zealous Wikipedia contributors quoting sources that were often taking wild stabs at numbers at best, simply making them up at worst. In fact, it appears as though in calculating Garth Brooks' worldwide take, a contributor has merely doubled his American take, which of course is a problem as Brooks is nowhere near as big in the rest of the world as he is in the States.--Zoso Jade 08:57, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
ProhibitOpinion, eh? Wish I'd thought of that! ProhibitOnions 17:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
PS: This list gets less credible by the day. Why hasn't it been deleted yet?

No cheating

For the source for Celine Dion and Neil Young seen here, you can clearly see that someone deliberately made that site in order to highlight their artists. That website lacks authority and should not be cited as a source.

I am certain that you can all notice that the information in the website was 'cut and pasted' from this site unto theirs and the figures were manipulated. The writing is in the same font and in the same format as the one on this page. Furthermore, the person who made the site is, like, 10 years old; they had pictures of 'their graduation'. Shouldn't we try to get reliable source? If we use that source, its like we are inviting other people to go out and make websites with unsupported info and cite it as a source. Journalist 02:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancies and unlikely figures

One example is Fariouz: here in the list claims she sold 35M in the US, while she doesn't figure on the RIAA's top 100 ( see riaa.com bestsellers top artists) - there seems to be at least 25 who sold under the given figure and are on the list.

Also, I can hardly imagine that Michael Jackson is so low on the list. Remember, so far he's the one with the single highest selling album worldwide.

  • He's also one of the acts with the fewest releases, hence he has less to ad on to it. Result - lower on the list than an big act who's released 3 times as many albums. 195.93.21.40 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you'd be wrong 195.93.21.40 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as coutry music goes, I very much doubt they have any significant selling outside the USA.

Tell anyone in europe "Garth Brooks" or "George Strait" and they give you the look of "What the fuck do you think? That Amsterdam is a small village where everyone knows each other?!", while they might be familiar with small-time death-metal bands. I can also hardly imagine that certain artists listed here sold more albums than the total number of albums released multiplied by the number of residents in their home country multiplied by ten. I mean, let's be a bit realistic, do you think a Greek guy sells outside greece? Cos personally, I never seen a greek album in the USA or europe.

This means that Latvian and Croatian artists who sold over sixhundredthousandmillion must be really popular in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, :-). Www.jpfo.org 04:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Then how come I know who they are? How come country music has top selling specailst magazines, radio shows and record stores here? Country music might not be as big here as in North America, but you are grossly underplaying it's success overseas. Country music's world wide appeal is equal to that of Jazz or Classical 195.93.21.40 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See how "Greek guy" Nana Mouskouri is selling outside the Europe on Amazon.com : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/002-0798253-1696857?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Nana+Mouskouri Vorash 14:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Mouskou Nanastapopulos isn't selling, I just said it's strange the her -with similar others- seem to have outsold Presley, Zeppelin, Floyd, Jackson, Madonna, etc, while I never saw an album by them anywhere in the world. I never listen to a single note by Beatles, Presley, Madonna, Jackson, Osmond, Garth Brooks, George Strait, the Who, etc., yet I know well who they are. So how come these lebanese/croatian/mesopotamian megabuzillon sellers aren't ever prominantly displayed in record stores, MTV or radio? Maybe because they sell well anyhow, so they don't need the promotion c*******ers like Cötley Müle always get on MTV?

  • Or maybe their number of sales quoted is bull****, for publicity purposes! 195.93.21.40 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well this Nana sings in apparently 15 langues, making her more fluenent than the pope. While I dont really know who she is, Europe is an audience at least as big as the United States, and if you can sing well in 15 languages I dont see any reason why she couldnt land herself in the top selling singers ever, without ever selling in the US, but she did, apparently, back in the 80's. -Meanie- (didnt realize I was not logged in)

Garth Brooks

Who is listing Karyn White while forgetting these best selling artists?

Also, let's try to rank them by worldwide sales. The numbers are jumping all over the place.

I agree, who could not understand to put them in order of sales.--Jerryseinfeld 19:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a source at the bottom of the chart.

Absolutely.--Jerryseinfeld 19:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were excluding groups!? That's ok if we're not.

I'm pretty sure Mariah and Celine and Elvis are somewhere on that list, but Britney? What about Barbara Streisand? That list is clearly flawed and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Britney definitely belongs on the list. Streisland has sold a lot of records ALL IN over many releases, but she's never had a single album sell in such quantities as Britney Spears.

Janet Jackson

Janet has NOT sold 100 million records! Where is your source for that? I demand to know! It sounds like it came from www.notachanceinhell.com! MadonnaFan

Then you can edit it like you see fit. - Jerryseinfeld 23:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Bowie wikipedia page states that he's sold 136 million. Consistency?

Janet Jackson has sold 100 million records because she has sold 77 million albums and about 23 million singles which makes it, that she has indeed sold about 100 million records!!!! (JJ)

No, she hasn't. That's what was claimed she sold, but a look at world-wide singles and album charts shows she's had less success that artists who haven't even sold half that. 195.93.21.40 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Removals

What's up User:Rmhermen? 11 artists/groups to many for you? Please don't remove anything before discussing it here, okay? - Jerryseinfeld 21:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move

List of best selling music artists was moved to Best selling music artists in US. Please don't do that. - Jerryseinfeld 22:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

I found a link which say she won an award for selling 150 million "albums", so I guess it can be 195 million albums and singles.--Jerryseinfeld 19:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Mariah Carey's number is pretty accurate as far as album and single sales... She won some Artist of the Millenium award for it at the World Music Awards a few years ago. Only thing is, this says she has released 15 albums and I can only think of 13.

What's with the empty links?

Each line links to a an empty url (i.e. [[http://]). Should these be pointing somewhere? If not, I'll removed them and hard-code in numbers. -- Kaszeta 19:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When so, and you add a new line item, do you notice how you have to update the line below it?--Jerryseinfeld 18:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Shania Twain

Shania has reportedly sold over 80 Million worldwide with only 4 albums, This list is a load of BS!

And I sold 5 billion albums. :-)

You'd better watch what you say. Twain's album, Come on Over sold 39 million copies worldwide, and with Up! and The Woman In Me (16 and 18 million copies respectively), that comes to a total of 74 million albums sold. Her debut record was a flop, but managed to sell 2 million coming up to 76 million. Finally, her greatest hits has currently sold four miilion, upping the total to eighty million. HAH!

The remaining four or five million copies are composed of her various singles sold, including "Any Man of Mine", "You're Still the One", "From This Moment On", "That Don't Impress Me Much", "Up!", "Forever and for Always", "Party for Two", and her other singles. 64.231.160.162 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Up" sold 16 million? lol that goes to show just how unrealsitc these figures are. The album sold less than 8 million world-wide by the time it dropped low in the charts in the USA and Europe, i highly doubt that it's sold betetr than half again since. 195.93.21.40 05:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert to last jerryseinfeld edit?

Tried to clean up, but realized the article looked better before, how do you revert an article?

Removed information

Look at how many times this article have suffered removed listings and removed links (article history).--Jerryseinfeld 18:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

ABBA

Why was the sales figures for ABBA changed from 370 millions to 250 millions by Vorash in edit '23:54 2005 May 21'? This is not consistent with what the ABBA page says. Does Vorash have any sources? I hope it has nothing to do with his changing Nana_Mouskouri from 250 to 300 millions and wanting her to have a better position than ABBA. I changed the figures back to reflect the contents of the ABBA page. - Killenheladagen

370 milion figure doesn't have any sources so far.Vorash 12:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

ABBA page is not a source. Everybody can write there whatever he want.Vorash 12:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course the ABBA article is not a definite source, but a good practise would be to treat each artist/band article as a source for the list article and then specify the original source in the artist/band article. I see that you edited the ABBA article so it says "140 to 370 million" which is good, and a reference in that article to a proper source would make it even better. I once read in a magazine that ABBA sold 500 million world wide, but almost nothing in the US. I will try to dig up that magazine. - Killenheladagen 17:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

All this figures of 300-400-500 millions seems to me coming from imagination of ABBA fans. If you will look at album sales numbers of ABBA you will not see such a figures.Vorash 17:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, at the gala performance of Mamma Mia in London (April 2004), ABBA were presented an award by Universal for sales of 360 million albums

Comments on Vorash's work

Vorash has put a lot of effort into trying to improve this list and article, which was previously completely worthless. Some comments:

  • For 1950s and 1960s artists only using US RIAA album sales is misleading. These artists sold a lot of singles back then, especially in less affluent markets where albums were too expensive. For example, even in the UK, I believe the Beatles sold more singles than albums during their active period. (No, I don't have a source for this at the moment.) So I think only counting albums, or only extrapolating from US album figures, is misleading for such artists.
  • As I'm sure Vorash realizes, trying to estimate worldwide sales from US sales is fraught with danger. It obviously breaks down for artists that are from non-English speaking countries, and probably also breaks down for mostly English-language artists who also record in non-English languages (think Dion or Estefan). Also, there seem to be some arbitrary low ratios assigned ... for instance Neil Diamond gets no extra worldwide sales at all, when I happen to know at the least he's very popular in the UK (I went to a sold-out arena show of his there).
  • Why is the table broken into two parts with a "==-==" divider that shows up in the table of contents?

Good effort overall, as I said. Wasted Time R 14:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

table broken in order to edit more easily ....you can edit half of page....... as of Neil Diamond i don't know about his sales and i never heard of him so i just put US sales numbers.....but you can change it !!.........:)Vorash 14:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Genre" column no good

Vorash, you jumped the shark when you added the "genre" column to this table. I don't know what you think "synth pop" is, but almost all of the artists you put in that genre don't belong there, as a look at the artists that are listed in the WP synth pop article will show you. You've also created artificial distinctions between "rock" and "rock and roll" (WP redirects these together and doesn't really try to distinguish them), and the distinction between "rock" and "hard rock" is also difficult to make reliably (the WP hard rock article only lists a few examples). And some of these acts are on the list precisely because they bridged a gap between genres, which will make them inherently difficult to place.

I would suggest just getting rid of this column. The purpose of this article is to try to figure out worldwide record sales, not to engage in pigeonholing of musical artists. Wasted Time R 12:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


This "synth pop" category is completely ridiculous. Gary Numan and Ultravox are synth pop (or at least were for part of their careers). Stevie Wonder, Mariah Carey, and Billy Joel are not. If the use of a synthesizer on your album makes you a synth pop artist, then everyone is nowadays; you might as well put "music" as a category for all the additional information it provides. What's wrong with, say, "pop," "rock," or "soul"?

Some of the other figures are pretty suspicious. I'm certain the Eagles sold more than 10 million albums outside the US. That table at the bottom needs some work, and the "not popular outside the US" or whatever it says is probably not NPOV. --ProhibitOnions 13:27, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • If you guys can not distinguish between Rock and Synth Pop i will suggest you to visit this site for the beginnig: http://www.discogs.com (All Entries that you have there were submited by totally different people . All these people write styles when they submit a record(CD or vinyl) Nobody guides them . Its like in wikipedia.)

Also i cant understand why you have a problem with genres - almost all articles about music artists in wikipedia starts with description of genre of this artist like "hard rock American artist" or "country american artist" ....so why it should be a problem here ??? The genre column gives the same short description of artist that you have in the beginning of every article about artist. Pop - is not a Genre - allmost all BestSellers are the "Pop".

  • THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO GIVE AS MUCh INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT - INFORMATION!!!. THIS IS NOT A SHOW !!!!!!
  • All modern music industry is about ESTIMATIOn - BRitish top 40 (is a 1500 store sample), BillBOard Top 200 is also limited sample - what ? you will suggest not to use this because it

is not REAl FACTS and only an ESTIMATION ?? WHAT does it MEAn 1#US #1 UK place that you see on every article....does it mean TRUE INFORMATION ?????? or does it mean ESTIMATIOn ?? Vorash 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

THe estimation can be good or wrong (as you showed it in 50s-60s singles sales with Beatles and Elvis), but no estimation in absence of information means - HIDDINg INFORMATION !!!!!Vorash 15:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The article about Synth pop is misleading when it says "Lyrically, synth pop has an affection for science-fiction themes." and "Synth pop is sometimes referred to as electropop ". I already read all articles about Genres in wikipedia and also in some other 100s web sites.Vorash 15:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • MY DESCRIPTION of SYNTH POP track is : POp song that was produced mostly by synthesizer .

Point. No More no Less. (exactly as in the begining of the article "Synth pop is a style of popular music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument") .........Vorash 15:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

collectors and DJs) you will see SYNTH-POp description exactly as i wrote in GEnre column. THis site is visited by some 20,000 people a day........and what you can see there is "a REAl PEOPLE OPINION" about STYLES. .... Vorash 15:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fist of all, kindly refrain from the personal comments. Secondly, you have just described synth pop. Explain how Mariah Carey counts? Where are Stevie Wonder's science-fiction lyrics? --ProhibitOnions 15:51, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


  • All Entries that you have there were submited by totally different people . All these people write styles when they submit a record(CD or vinyl) Nobody guides them . Its like in wikipedia. :

All counts as "Style: Synth-pop". All article about "Synth-pop" is wrong. NObody use it and nobody will understand the discription that you have in this article. Its measleading.Vorash 16:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


You quote a single source, another website, on a single artist, Madonna, and that makes everyone else synth pop?

The case for Madonna can be made, as she became popular (1982) as synth-pop or electropop was still a popular genre, and her music was clearly influenced by it, as well as by disco and R&B; although her later albums, such as Like A Virgin, relied mostly on other instruments. The Wikipedia article on synth pop explains what is meant by the genre and how it differs from later forms of pop music that (as most do) used synthesizers:

Synth pop is a style of popular music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument. While it might be argued that most current popular and commercial music in the industrialized world is realized via electronic instruments, synth pop has its own stylistic tendencies which differentiate it from other music produced by the same means. These include: the exploitation of artificiality (the synthesizers are not used to imitate acoustic instruments), the use of mechanical rhythms and "feel", the use of vocal arrangements as a counterpoint to the artificiality of the instruments, and the use of ostinato patterns as an effect. Synth pop song forms are generally the same as in "regular" pop music. Lyrically, synth pop has an affection for science-fiction themes. (Emphasis mine)

It continues with a list of artists who are generally regarded as reflective of the genre. If you are unfamiliar with them, you should become acquainted with their work, as this will help make it clear that synth pop is a specific genre, and is not just a synonym for pop music. --ProhibitOnions 17:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Its not a single Source !!!!!!!! All Entries that you have there were submited by totally different people !!! All these people write styles when they submit a record(CD or vinyl) Nobody guides them !! Its like in wikipedia !!!!Vorash 17:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC) YOu have 100,000 members there and they all WRONG ?? Vorash 17:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone is willing to provide more substantive arguments to retain it, my vote would go for removing the "genre" column entirely. Individual artist pages will describe their style in sufficient detail. --ProhibitOnions 17:12, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has enough of a burden in trying to document record sales, it shouldn't include extraneous controversial analysis. Wasted Time R 17:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
what does it mean "Standards" ? :) Vorash 19:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
See Pop Standards.

I've tidied the article a bit and taken out the genre column, because it was controversial and, based on the discussion, distracted from the focus of the article (accurate music sales). Genre information is available on each artist, and it's not usually something that can be distilled into a word or two. Vorash, keep up the good work hunting down the sales statistics. --ProhibitOnions 17:49, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Well i can agree to remove any controversial genres, like "Synth pop" Vorash 17:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, as you had a rather unusual definition of it, but there's really no common worldwide standard for some genres, at least the less popular ones. I think Wasted Time R was right, the article is stronger without the genre column. --ProhibitOnions 18:00, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

No Contributors

I probably shold not speak to people, whose contribution to CORE Article DATA so far is equal to 0. You keep wasting my time and energy on details that dont have any relationship to CORE ARTICLE DATA - DATA ABOUT SALES.Vorash 18:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Very well. Let's take out the "genre" column altogether and keep the article focused on sales. --ProhibitOnions 18:17, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Well as i said before.....i will not discusss any article's issues with people that dont participate in writing process. THE DISCUSION PAGE on WIKIPEDIA is ONLY for people who actually participate in writing process. This way they can discuss their problems in article creation. I cant see you fitting in this category.Vorash 18:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Albums" column pointless

There is no need for the "number of albums" column (which predates the current work). It's too hard to calculate (you have to know about out-of-print records), it ignores singles, and it's unnecessary – the "years active" column conveys the length of career, which is what we're interested in. (BTW a little amazing that the top act is the only one with a single-decade-only career ...) Wasted Time R 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

what tyou mean ""number of albums" column.?...its column for source link or explanation on what estimation based on( on what numbers)...you want to write estimation without explanation ?Vorash 01:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I mean the column "Albums" that comes after "Names" and before "Worldwide Sales". Wasted Time R 01:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
well i dont know...........you think it will not be intersting to see ratio between sales and number of albums ?.........in case of Nana Mouskouri that has 450 albums ( if its true) its quite interesting no?..........Vorash 01:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, the table's total sales count includes albums, EPs, and singles, so you're not going to know the sales:albums ratios even if you do have the number of albums. You're a computer programmer, so you should be familiar with the principle of orthogonal design. This article should just try to do one thing: list sales volume for top artists. That's going to be hard enough as it is! Let the Mouskouri article figure out if she really released 450 albums. Let the Madonna article figure out if her genre is synth pop or dance/pop or just plain pop or whatever. Focus on one thing. (Having the nationality and years active information violates orthogonality but is ok in practice, since the information is easy to obtain and rarely changes.) Wasted Time R 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is "TLS"?

It looks to me (especially based on the sales figure) that this should be TLC. --FuriousFreddy 00:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

you was right , it was my mistake Vorash 00:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

I think Dylan's numbers must be grossly underestimated here, probably due to counting only figures from the first few months after album releases. Selections from his back catalog are among the most frequently repurchased during media transitions (vinyl-to-CD, etc.,.), and I'm sure his overall numbers would rise by at least a third if this were properly accounted for. JDG 08:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Dylan hasn't sold as many as his fans seem to think, he has sold millions yes, but he still hasn't sold as many as a lot of other acts.

Alla Pugachova

Common sense suggests that the 260 million figure attributed to her is an overestimate. (Shame on Britannica Online!) Consider the following: Bruce Springsteen, an artist of approximately similar popularity in his home country, and active over about the same number of years, is shown as having sold only 80 million, of which 20 million or so were outside the US. Alla has only a small fanbase outside the former USSR. Furthermore, the USSR was a poorer country with a far less developed recording industry, and at times it could be hard to buy popular records at all, even if they were by a national recording artist. There's no doubt she's popular and has sold a lot of records, but more than Madonna, Celine Dion, and Pink Floyd worldwide?

I'd guess, based on other enormously popular artists like the Puhdys (East Germany) and Omega (Hungary) that a figure of perhaps 60 million might be likely. Which, as I mentioned, would be as many as Bruce Springsteen has ever sold in the US. Either way, the lower estimates are probably more credible than this one. --ProhibitOnions 16:48, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Well, you are absolutely wrong about USSR's recording industry. Its true that USSR was poor country, but there were TV sets and vinyl players in every home, and USSR population was more than 290 million. The USSR record industry represented small number of "popular" artists such as Pugacheva. This fact supports over 200 milion figure ,because russian population was forced to buy only "selected" artists. The same policy was in other "soviet" countries. Vorash 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realize that, but again, the US population was 5/6ths that of the USSR (hence my comparison, they were similar market sizes) and its top-selling artists sold only a small fraction of Alla's sales figures listed here. Most other statistics suggest 100-150 million, which I suspect is still an overestimate, but this 260 million is double that. Even accounting for the lack of competition, I would suggest you take an average of all the estimates you've seen or pick another one that might be more realistic; I think this is more evidence that Britannica's lost it. Even 100 million would be a huge number of albums. --ProhibitOnions 17:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Its not only in USSR, you should aslo add other countries like East Garmany , Poland..and more....and i also don't see any particular interest in exaggerating sales figures by Pugacheva, because she is the number one seller in Russia in any case and nobody knows her in world, so why to exaggerate numbers ??Vorash 17:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Presumably because she would like to claim to have outsold Madonna. As far as other countries' artists go, we're looking at 10-20 million, perhaps not enough to fit on the list; the Puhdys sold 12-15 million at the time of German reunification (including a fair number in West Germany) and a couple million more since then (including CD replacements). For example, Poland's current best selling artists (Ich Troje and Myslovitz) have sold 3-6 million (as I recall). --ProhibitOnions 17:57, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

We aslo don't have any other sources for this info. What you mean saing "Most other statistics suggest 100-150 million" ? What other statistics ? Forums?Vorash 18:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[b]Vorash[/b]:

1) Pugacheva was #1 selling artist not only in the USSR, but also in many soviet-oriented countries with overall population over 500 million people.

2) Soviet people were never poor in anyhow close sense as it happens in the USA (see the film "Client" from 1994 for example). Everybody had health care, work, home (most often it was quite pathetic home, but no way caravans or rented car-houses near to garbage dumping sites -- where USA's poor people sometimes live). Also, very average families could allow once a year themselves to fly to USSR's resort, Crimea, at Black Sea to rest there for 2-4 weeks. So, of course, people very well could allow themselves buying of Alla Pugacheva records. 84.204.114.194


I don't think AP was the #1 selling artist anywhere outside Russia or the USSR (she isn't in any former Soviet state I can think of outside Russia, in Ukraine I think it's currently Okean Elzi; she's well known but hardly a big seller in places like Poland), though obviously she has fans in many countries. And yes, she's sold a lot of records. But, as you point out further down the page, many artist sales figures are highly exaggerated. If the Beatles or Elvis have only sold 300 million albums worldwide, it is hard to justify similar sales for AP, especially as her sales are mostly restricted to Russia/the USSR. My point about the relative wealth of the US was not meant to start a discussion about the Soviet Union, just that it is an indisputable fact that the US had a much better developed recording industry, availability of recordings, and general purchasing power, even if the consumers there had more choice and might spread their album buying out between more artists (however, I have lived in both countries, and know that lots of Russians can't stand Alla), and that national records were relatively cheap in the USSR. The population of the US was a little bit less than the USSR's, but significantly more than Russia's; therefore comparisons between similarly popular recording stars can be made; Bruce Springsteen, a national icon who has been releasing albums for the same length of time, and at times has been the top-selling recording artist (note: I can't stand him) sold 60 million in the U.S., where record sales can be assessed with relative accuracy.

I would suggest therefore that claims that AP sold 300 million albums are highly exaggerated, as there is no real way to verify this (her husband, likely to give an optimistic figure, claimed 140 million). She hasn't outsold the Beatles or Madonna worldwide, or come close, and any claims that she has should be treated with a great degree of skepticism.

Which is not to pick on Alla alone, I think most artists inflate their record sales figures, as they're hard to prove, and lazy journalists tend to repeat whichever figures the stars tell them...

--ProhibitOnions July 2, 2005 22:09 (UTC)


`That was not me who claimed AP's 260 million records or whatever else sales figure for her. However, the united socialistic market was supermonopolistic and twice as bigger than the USA. So really big figures could really be true; also, that sales figure came not from just some greedy label managers or producers, but from the firm "Melodia" accountings. The probability that the organization would somehow overestimate the sales is quite low, because Soviet authorities would put in jail anyone for this. Hence sales data from 1975-1991 years period is reliable.


I should like to point out that the USSR's people only really started to be what we call poor when the system started to break down. There were probably only a few allowed artists, and they were likely friends of the comunist insiders. I would also like to point out that us wikipedians can not claim to be more accurate that Britanica. If Britanica said so, it is almsot certainly correct becasue it is widely considered to be the most complete and accurate collection in the world. I say we stick with the Britanica figure because Britanica is possibly the most accurate source we can find.--Meanie 05:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


No, the Britannica article is a news story on their website, not a proper encyclopedia entry, and is not subject to the same academic rigor. It repeats an unreliable figure, as many news articles unfortunately do.
As far as the claim above that the Soviet recording industry would not inflate production figures, it wouldn't have been the first time. I'm surprised by the rose-tinted recollections of the wealth of the record-buying Soviet public in some of the above comments.
But where are the other huge-selling Soviet artists? The industry wasn't dedicated to Alla alone. Who was the second-biggest seller? Surely they weren't outsold 30 to 1 by Alla Pugacheva if the assertions above are true, so why aren't they on the list?
To be honest, I would be surprised if she'd far outsold the likes of Karel Gott. ProhibitOnions 21:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

elvis american sales

been following these for some time... in 2001 RIAA said his total was 60 million, he was more or less equal with elton john and they were gradually awarding him certifications, there'd been no "holding back". RIAA then upped his total to 100 million on the 25th anniversary of his death - are we to really expect he sold his 100 millionth sale on that precise day, or even year and that riaa just happened to magically discover tens of millions of previously unregistered sales? now its 117 million, in otherwords we're expected to believe that elvis is selling more records now in the usa than at the height of his popularity in the 50s! between 2001 and today that means elvis sold 57 million records, between the 1950s and 2001 he sold 60 million records. it's blatant figure rigging to reflect a p.r event.

Can you please provide us a some link to "2001 RIAA 60 milion" figure ? Vorash 15:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Elvis sales in 2001 were certified by RIAA only on level about 60-68 million albums. There is no link about, because the "Best Sellers" list is not archived and updated regularly. However, it is not necessary some PR move, because according to RIAA rules it certifies (and updates certifications) an album or single or whatever if only distributor specifically files filled forms about this. Most of Elvis' albums were not certified before 2002. (by DenisRS)84.204.124.213

Elvis's certificated albums in 1999 were 77 million - [1] -Vorash 16:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Elvis likely sold most of his Albums after his death, and we should remember this. There were a lot of new compilations released in the 90's and 00's and the RIAA might not have updated the figure for a great many years.--Meanie 05:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That says more about the RIAA's figures, that it does Elvis' sales 195.93.21.40 18:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Can anyone confirm that these guys have actually sold 100 mil? User:Keith, evil dude

Britney twice?

How come Britney Spears is listed at number 1 and at the same time at number 29? :-) -- NicApicella, 16/Jun/2005

If you see an obvious case of Vandalism why you are not correcting it ??Vorash 00:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD

List of best-selling music artists was proposed for deletion on German wikipedia 4 days ago, but most of the people voted for keeping it. Vorash 29 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)

UPDATE

http://www.antimusic.com/news/05/june/2902.shtml Go there. Apparently the RIAA has updated their list. Redwolf24 30 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)

RIAA list is already updated on RIAA site (it has 6/20/2005 update).Vorash 1 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Jeremy Castle

Stumbled on this while researching him for a VfD. He's on this list as having sold 20,000,000 albums in the US but http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp mentions nothing, he has no entries regarding ever charting on Allmusic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jeremy_Castle RasputinAXP 1 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

He was added by anonymous ip address 199.164.253.83 on 21 June 2005, probably by Jeremy Castle himself. Vorash 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)


=

Any wised up industry insider will find these claims made for record sales almost entirely risable - Better to lose the entire page than have unverified promotional hype logged as facts. It brings the Wilkipedia project into disrepute. Just one example from many; Cliff Richard has certainly historically sold a lot of singles in the UK but albums? and internationally? not at all in America. There are very few hard core sources for accurately verifying sales... almost none of the sources here are reputable. All too frequently extra zeros are added by publicists. Remove the page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_best-selling_music_artists_Archive1_1143.html"