Talk:List of best-selling music artists

Elton John and Nana Mouskouri

Harout, i really need your opinion. Do we need to remove Elton from the 300m-list?. because seriously, most of the reliable source only claimed him have sold between 200m-250m. Unlike Madonna which have so many reliable sources which claim her 300m-sales.

And i just wondering, how many certification units sales of Nana Mouskouri? and how far could claim the million seller?

Need your help. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nana Mouskouri has only 5.4 million certified units, she has no chance for this list. I wouldn't worry too much about removing Elton John's 300 million as in that very section Jackson is list with even more inflated figure, with almost the same amount of certified sales. We want to concentrate on preventing further inflated sales figures from getting on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait, Elton John's source for 300 million is no longer active. Isn't there another source that we can replace that with?--Harout72 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, but why so many reliable source like Telegraph, Independent, The Age, BBC, and even CNN bravely said Mouskouri have sold 250-400m. That's silly for me.

About 300m-sales of John. NONE, believe me. like you see. I've been trying to re-new the claim figures source all artist in this list which is more new and reliable.

And i've been trying day by day seeing the new source for 300m sales of John, and NONE. that's the reason why i ask you, if we remove John from the 300m-list at least until we find the new source for that figures.

What do you think? Politsi (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the 300 million, and moved him one section down.--Harout72 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the intromision. Harout72 I have a question by: " as in that very section Jackson is list with even more inflated figure, with almost the same amount of certified sales". It is point a very controversial, but, I think that is necesary put the 300 million records, because:

• By Daily Telegraph

• By Daily News and Analysis; author= Asian News International (ANI)

• By Canoe.ca; author= Jam! and World Entertainment News Network

I think that although always it is an inflated figure, would have three numbers: 300, 350 and 400, so we let the people decide who they think and believe. What do you say?. I can add myself, but I need your opinion. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) P.S: Sorry for my bad English.

If I understand you correctly, you want to add a source that supports 300 million records? Well, all of your articles by The Telegraph, DNA, Jam! state He has sold more than 300 million records. Isn't that kind of already 350 million which we have?--Harout72 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris, what have you done to Jackson's sales figure in this list, is GOOD and no need to make the reader more confuse to add another claim figures, let's just around 350-400m sales.

Beside, we already agree that any inflated sales figures which is far away from the certification units will not use in this list, then you can remove the note about Michael Jackson's 750m sales figures from the list, to make this list more beautiful to see.

Hi, harout. I hope you're not forget about my question regarding with Marley sales below. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll try to explain well (So sorry because my English is not very good :/). I already did. Thanks for your words, Politsi :) I try to do the best I can through my scope. I looked at the note added by Harout; and it seems that the sales note of MJ may be removed. But I did not, seeing cospiraciones / discussion forums as Prince.org, UKMIX, MJCommunity... etc, that They often come to defend their positions in Wikipedia. But If you think it is longer not necessary to include the note by MJ on their sales (750 millions), you can delete, but you should also ask Harout, about it. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob Marley

Harout, need your opinion. Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-elvis-presley-are-top-earning-dead-musicians-20121101) said that Marley have sold 75m-albums.

How many his certification sales and is it quite enough to support the 75m-albums and not records? and it seems this is the only prestigious source which said about 75m-figures of Marley. thanks Politsi (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Got it.--Harout72 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvis Presley figure

Hi harout. Finally you give your response to my edit in this list...hehehe

Well, actually i'm still being confuse with the 500m-figures source of Elvis Presley which i've got from Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/elvis/epobit.htm) but that's came in 1977, which is 35 years ago.

But, i try to inserted that figure and wait your response on it. And it was delete already, it's okay for me and i'm happy for it because it means you really maintain this list very well.

I've been re-new several sources of those figures in this list and updating the claim figures which is i feel need to do (such as Garth Brooks, Julio Iglesias and Neil Diamond) and i see there is no change from you, then i think you were agree with me.

For Elvis, personally i'm also doesn't agree any source which is so old, but i still feel need to find another lower figures (probably between 400-500m for Presley and Beatles).

But if you feel that would be not necessary. I will follow you. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any good reason to include images on this list?

I'm puzzled as to why this list includes images. I can't see that they serve any purpose, and the batch of pictures plopped into the top of each section looks random and sloppy. It's also confusing that there isn't an image for every artist in each section; at the top, I could look at the pictures and quickly scan what artists were in that section, but then a couple of sections down, I realized that there were artists in the list that weren't in the pictures. I realize now that, if you edit the section, you'll see an (ungrammatical) explanation that images are only included for the top seven artists in each section, but that's not made clear in any way to the reader (and it doesn't help that the images aren't even in the same order that the artists are listed, which would make it even harder to figure out that it's only the top seven artists). It seems to me that a list without images (or with images integrated into the table) would look much better than a list where each section includes an apparently random smattering of images, awkwardly shoved in at the top. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The images are of the seven top certified artists in each section, they're not randomly shoved in as you believe. And there is no reason why the list can't have images.--Harout72 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat this part of my message above, since you apparently missed it: "I realize now that, if you edit the section, you'll see an (ungrammatical) explanation that images are only included for the top seven artists in each section, but that's not made clear in any way to the reader (and it doesn't help that the images aren't even in the same order that the artists are listed, which would make it even harder to figure out that it's only the top seven artists)." The reader sees seven images with no explanation for why those seven images were selected; therefore, to the reader, the images appear random, which makes the list appear sloppy. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, No Need to be Genius to see why only seven and why their images been selected to be placed on each section, the reader would be understand who is the best artist with the best certification sales, and no need to make this list more full with un-important explanation. As long as they could read and understand english. If you want to make this list look better, you can make yourself usefull by trying to find another famous artist but not being included on this list while their certification is more than enough (such as Eric Clapton) Politsi (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought I could understand English, until I got to this comment... Look, the truth is that the smattering of pictures looks random and stupid to anyone who doesn't know your "rules", which would presumably be 99+% of the people viewing this page. But since you all prefer the article, that you work so hard on, to look random and stupid rather than just remove a feature that adds no value whatsoever, I'll leave you to it and no longer watch this discussion. I couldn't even use this article to find the info I was originally looking for (the sales ranking of the Andrews Sisters), so I'm happy to forget it exists. See ya. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Yesterday, i was trying to update their claim figures up to 250m by using this source (http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/rolling-stones-not-fade-away-ever/1526659/_) and wait your response today. And it has been erase and back to their old claim figures.

Harout, If you think that would be not necessary, it's okay for me. I just need your opinion, is it possible to place their name equally with Elton John and Pink Flyod? because their music legacy it seems equally with them.

Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. There is not need for the figure of 250 million as their certified sales are below 100 million.--Harout72 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Andrews Sisters

Greetings. Sorry I added photos of Dylan and Prince (no I did not see any notice not to add past seven but that's fine). Can you please add The Andrews Sisters to the group selling 75 million or more? Wikipedia says MCA last counted them in the 1970s. Here is a source: "Biography for The Andrews Sisters". IMDb.com. Retrieved January 31, 2013.. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We actually require certain percentage amount of certified sales for artists depending on the year they have officially begun charting. For 75 million claim, Andrews Sisters would need 15 million in certified sales. I'm afraid, I can't find any certifications for them, whether in U.S., Canada or the U.K.. Besides, we don't source claimed figures to sources like IMDB, they are all sourced to articles published by news agencies, or Billboard, VH1 like sites.--Harout72 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

IMDB agrees with The New York Times. The Los Angeles Times says nearly 100 million. Thank you for keeping to high standards here (I've encountered that on Wikipedia by another listkeeper). The Andrews Sisters by Harry Nimmo (2004, who says they could sell a million a year) says on page 412, "CD liners and feature stories often claim record sales of sixty to ninety million for the sisters, but the range is so great that the figures are not meaningful." -SusanLesch (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Billboard ran the Associated Press obituary who says 80 million. Also note that the RIAA was founded in 1952. What would they know about a group from the 1940s? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, RIAA has issued certifications for albums released in the 50s and early 60s. Similarily, had any of Andrews Sister's records reached a Gold or Platinum status, they would have gotten certified also. In other words, lot of the records released in the 50s and 60s reached Gold and Platinum certification-levels towards the end of the 20th century, and certified only then. I can't see any decent chart peaks for Andrews Sisters' albums, released in the 70s. If you wish, we can put up the name, The Andrews Sisters, in the lead, next to the name of those artists who are also not on the list due to lack of certified sales (proof of sales). Honestly that's all I can offer as we have to maintain consistency.--Harout72 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Your offer is a good start. But instead of lumping them in all the uncertified artists, in this case we ought to simply say "The Andrews Sisters recorded before RIAA was in existence" (no need to list them in the article, but the examples you cite from the 50s, 60s and 70s are not the era they worked in). Also please note that Billboard/AP says "several" of their records were gold, but the system this article uses has to ignore those. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what? Bing Crosby is in the same boat (they recorded a dozen songs together). I think both the sisters and Crosby need to come out of your mini-list of exceptional cases. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are under the impression that records released in the 40s or the 50s sold only during that era. That's what I tried and explain to you, perhaps my explanation wasn't clear. Records (albums, singles) keep selling for decades after their release date. Therefore, often times get certified decades later. For example, Elvis Presley's album Elvis, which was released in 1956 (before RIAA's Gold/Platinum program), received its Platinum in 2011. Or Frank Sinatra's Christmas Album released in 1957 (before RIAA) was certified Platinum in 1994. Also, Bing Crosby's White Christmas which was released in 1977, received its 4x Platinum in 2004. The same should've been with Andrews Sisters. It's true that we shouldn't expect to see all of Andrews Sister' albums/single certified as some of their albums/singles didn't continue selling after 1958, but their best selling albums released in 1940s (and compilation albums) should have kept selling for decades and eventually would have reached at least the Gold status after 1958, when RIAA already had established its Gold/Platinum program. In my honest opinion, we're just dealing with inflated promotional sales figures whether it's Crosby's 300 million records (albums, singles) as claimed by some sources or Andrews Sisters' 75 million (no offense). Anyways, I won't include Andrews Sisters in the lead since you don't want it. But Bing Crosby has released numerous albums/singles after 1958, therefore, should've had a lot more certified sales than just some 6.5 million in total from RIAA, if really sold as much as claimed.--Harout72 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I was under this mistaken impression. Just FYI, the Andrews Sisters' first hit came out in 1938, and the last one or two were by Patty alone in the mid-50s. I added them in the mini-list. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles claimed sales seems inaccurate.

According to Guinness World Records they've sold over a billion records. Despite Guinness World records stating they've sold over a billion records which usually implies it's little over 1 billion sales, according to Statistic Brain The Beatles have sold over 2.3 billion albums/records.

I think the wiki article should be changed and the claimed sales for The Beatles corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryTheBeatles (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

These sources are unreliable. By the way, there's no musical act in the world which has sold over 1 billion records. Most of the figures are inflated. That's the reason why the certified sales are more important and included in this list.Christo jones (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's no is a good idea: The Guinness Book of Records is based in EMI and in principle, EMI is a source subjective and biased. IMHO :). Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• 2.3 billion? Jesus Michael Jackson wouldn't have been in so much debt if that were true! Mc8755 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They use sources such as RIAA, Apple Records and EMI which was last verified late last year. You can email them for their references or ask they how they got the statistics.

They obviously didn't make it up.

And Michael Jackson never actually bought the whole catalogues, he owned roughly half the rights to The BEatles catalogue but would steadily sell it off bit by bit. He also only bought the catalogue in 1985, which is already 15 years after The Beatles broke up and way past the period where Beatlemania was at it's peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryTheBeatles (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

hahaaa lol this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.87.203 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not applicable. Sorry, but no need of delete the 300, 350 and 400 million. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mötley Crüe

Harout, are they mention already in this list?. need your advise, who the h3ll (sorry...) are they?. USA Today (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/music/news/story/2012-07-15/motley-crue-on-the-road-again/56312954/1) and BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20423799) said them have sold 80m-albums. While Hartford Courant (http://articles.courant.com/2011-07-12/entertainment/hc-motley-crue-poison-0714-20110712_1_poison-new-york-dolls-text-shop) said them have sold 75m-albums.

Need your help, are these reliable? both. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done The 75 million albums claim works as they have over 25 million in certified album sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga should be included in this list

I could find this source for her sales; I can look for more if you want.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/lady-gaga-career-statistics/ -Mastamaind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.237.2.244 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Duran Duran

Harout, sorry...but please remind me again, how many certification sales of their albums only? as i remember, i was trying to add them in the list with 80m-albums claim. But, unfortunately their certification is not enough.

But how about with the 75m-albums claim from The Times (Malta)(http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080511/local/the-wild-boys-are-coming.207608) is it work for them? thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Duran Duran need 28% certified sales as they've begun charting in 1981, that's 21 million certified album sales needed for a claim of 75 million albums. Their available certified album sales are only 15.8 million. Don't delete this section please, let it get archived for other editors, if someone else asks the same question in the future.--Harout72 (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Alabama

Harout, i need your help for them also. How many their certification sales for albums only? is it working for 75m-albums claim. and please advice, which one of these two source is reliable for the list.

VH1 (http://m.vh1.com/news/article.rbml?id=1672831&cid=recco_news_mre) and MSN (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/one-country-blogpost.aspx?post=9a1475e9-5557-44bb-b93c-01e648f6cebb) ? thanks Politsi (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Alabama need their 75 million claim supported by 28% certified sales as they've begun charting in 1981. Their certified album sales are 47.2 million, which is more than enough. But I'm hesitant to use the first source as it looks kind of incomplete, and the figure of 75 million is coming from BMI's Jody Williams, it states Williams cited just a few of Alabama's achievements, from earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame to selling "75 million albums. The second source cannot be found and MSN is not a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna Claim figures source

Harout, Is it a source from Euronews is welcome to the list. If yes, then we can replace Rihanna 100m-claim figures with the source from Euronews (http://www.euronews.com/in-vogue/1806870-is-rihanna-set-to-be-new-face-of-chanel/) ? thanks Politsi (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Euronews is a News TV channel, and it's ok for us to use, you can replace the current source with that.--Harout72 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)