MJ as the 3rd best selling artist of all time?

Chaos

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
21,756
Points
0
Location
Here
I still see that they are saying he's sold 350 million records. While Elvis/Beatles are around 500 - 600 million. I don't get that, he was a bigger act on a global scale, meanwhile that 350 million number I've read since the mid 00s. If I recall, in 2007 they said Michael's solo sales were 750 million... We all know he sold a shit load after he died... so how come he's still listed as only sold 350 million?

Beatles might have been big, but people in the middle of nowhere with no electricity living under rocks... knew Michael Jackson.
 
As far as I know, Elvis and the Beatles sold more than Michael (with over 1 billion for Elvis). But these are older estimates from the time when Michael was still alive, so the order may have changed since then. Keep in mind that Elvis and the Beatles were also global superstars, and they were there long before MJ, so they had plenty more time to sell their music.
 
As far as I know, Elvis and the Beatles sold more than Michael (with over 1 billion for Elvis). But these are older estimates from the time when Michael was still alive, so the order may have changed since then. Keep in mind that Elvis and the Beatles were also global superstars, and they were there long before MJ, so they had plenty more time to sell their music.

But what were there individual album sales like? MJ had Thriller, which people today say sold 66 million even though back in 2007 they were saying it had sold 110 million... I'm pretty sure the posthumous sales must have pushed it further by another 10 million.

Elvis and Beatles were global, but neither would be as widely recognised as MJ in South Asia for example.
 
But what were there individual album sales like?

I don't know any exact numbers, but Michael's music catalogue is much smaller in comparison to both of them (e.g., the Beatles released 13 successful albums between 1963 and 1970!). And although Elvis died so many years ago, they constantly release new material or compilations. So that might be a reason.

Elvis and Beatles were global, but neither would be as widely recognised as MJ in South Asia for example.

Thats probably right for Elvis, as he was especially huge in US and Europe, but I think it's a different case with the Beatles. They were successful all over the world, also very popular in Asia. Still today, everyone knows songs like Yesterday or Hey Jude. So I think it's very possible that they sold as much or even more than MJ. With Elvis, he was the first global superstar, and at that time, there were generally fewer music artists and releases, so less competition.

Overall, there will never be exact numbers, all published sales are just based on estimates and there are huge deviations between the information from different sources.
 
Elvis and Beatles were global, but neither would be as widely recognized as MJ in South Asia for example.
Being recognized and selling are 2 different things. Muhammad Ali is recognized worldwide, but he didn't sell many records. Ali released a children's album in the 1970s. Also, isn't western music banned in some countries, and the albums are only available as bootlegs, if at all. Bootlegs don't count as official sales. Another thing is that the majority of the biggest selling artists are white and mostly male rock bands/singers, so that should give an idea of who are buying the most records and who people bought the most in the past.
 
Michael Jackson is the 2nd best selling musical act after The Beatles . He’s ahead of Elvis. Check out www.chartmasters.org . They actually rely on traceable record/single sales and lay it out for each artist .
 
Elvis selling 1 billion albums is a load of B.S. And I think the reason why The Beatles is ahead of Michael is because they made more albums than him. If they both made the same amount of albums, then I think Michael would have outsold The Beatles
 
The Beatles are ahead of Michael because they released albums every year in the 60s, which was their peak. If Michael had done the same in the 80s, I am sure he would be ahead of the Beatles.
 
I'm just gonna say it. I don't believe Elvis or The Beatles for that matter sold anything near a billion records, let alone sell more than Michael

Neither have an album that has sold over 30 million records. Have to wonder if Michael was born white, would the story be different...
 
Elvis selling 1 billion albums is a load of B.S. And I think the reason why The Beatles is ahead of Michael is because they made more albums than him. If they both made the same amount of albums, then I think Michael would have outsold The Beatles

Totally agree
 
Have to wonder if Michael was born white, would the story be different.
Yeah, he'd be Donny Osmond, who's solo recording career wasn't that successful after the 1970s and wasn't really taken seriously. He'd be just another white singer. If the J5 were white, they probably wouldn't have been a big thing anyway, just another teen idol group or singer that had brief success. Very few had big success as adults. Even New Kids On The Block didn't, and they were huge during their time.

I think it was because the J5 got signed to Motown that helped them. Motown was still somewhat a popular label when the J5 first came out. If the J5 had signed to a major label like Warner Brothers or RCA, they wouldn't have gotten the same push, because at the time black music wasn't their focus like with Motown. At most, at a major they would probably have just been promoted to R&B radio. Motown generally tried to reach the mainstream audience, unlike other black oriented labels like Chess, Malaco, & Stax.
 
Have to wonder if Michael was born white, would the story be different...

One thing is for sure, if Michael was white, there would be no accusations and documentaries about him being a pedophile. The media would do anything in their power to protect him, just like they protect their white heros like Elvis, David Bowie, Harvey Weinstein etc.
 
Yeah, he'd be Donny Osmond, who's solo recording career wasn't that successful after the 1970s and wasn't really taken seriously. He'd be just another white singer. If the J5 were white, they probably wouldn't have been a big thing anyway, just another teen idol group or singer that had brief success. Very few had big success as adults. Even New Kids On The Block didn't, and they were huge during their time.

I think it was because the J5 got signed to Motown that helped them. Motown was still somewhat a popular label when the J5 first came out. If the J5 had signed to a major label like Warner Brothers or RCA, they wouldn't have gotten the same push, because at the time black music wasn't their focus like with Motown. At most, at a major they would probably have just been promoted to R&B radio. Motown generally tried to reach the mainstream audience, unlike other black oriented labels like Chess, Malaco, & Stax.

Fair comment. Just to clarify, I meant if nothing about Michael's story and success was different, just the colour of his skin. Would he have been as scrutinized
No offence indented
 
Michael Jackson is in front at Number 1. The 750 Millionen is from 1987. Was 1987 in the book of world records. 32 years old now. And the sales for elvis and beatles are just claims. Rememeber the weird 2 Billion claims for them. LOL. 1. Michael Jackson. 2. Beatles. 3. maybe Elvis. Elvis was just an american artist. Not global. Not that much sales in the other continents. Everywhere in the World the sales for Michael Jackson are much higher than for the others.
 
total albums Mike is 3.. per album Michael is #1.. Both Elvis and The Beatles have many many more albums than Michael.. MANY!

Now if we could only count J5, Jacksons, and MJ stuff together :)
 
One thing is for sure, if Michael was white, there would be no accusations and documentaries about him being a pedophile. The media would do anything in their power to protect him, just like they protect their white heros like Elvis, David Bowie, Harvey Weinstein etc.

Elvis sexualy molested girls. And noone is making stories and want to make money with that. The media is protecting the molester elvis.
 
Elvis sexualy molested girls. And noone is making stories and want to make money with that. The media is protecting the molester elvis.

White previledge my friend. This documentary and media witch hunt against Michael is clearly a racist attack on a black man and his legacy.
 
Beatles

The Beatles are ahead of Michael because they released albums every year in the 60s, which was their peak.
The Beatles were also helped by their albums being re-released on CD in 1987, where a lot of people bought them over. Same for further remasters and also new albums of previously unreleased material. People even buy CDs of bad takes and studio chatter like the Anthology CDs. Would a lot Mike's audience buy a CD set with 5 flubbed takes of Beat It on it. I imagine fans here would complain about it, saying Mike would not want that released. The Beatles are always written about in rock magazines and talked about on TV. Things like Sgt. Pepper being the best album in history. Acts from many genres have remade their songs. That's free publicity. People go see Beatles tribute bands, and there's lots of merchandising for them. Their movies occasionally get re-released to theaters and were restored a few years ago, even Magical Mystery Tour. They're a brand, not just selling music, but Monopoly board games, Lego sets, and video games.

The Beatles don't really have the bad publicity like Mike has had. So that has also helped them too. Even if they did, bad behavior was considered a good thing in rock music, unlike with most other genres. Look at the criticism Whitney Houston got for doing drugs. That didn't really happen with Ozzy Osbourne, Eagles, or Rolling Stones. People laughed at Ozzy snorting ants or biting bats. People make jokes about Keith Richards outliving a lot of other artists. The slogan is "sex drugs & rock n' roll". Other than Paul McCartney, the fabs have mostly stayed out of the limelight after the breakup. They're also a boomer era rock act and that music is promoted more than any other oldies type of music. Like Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd getting deluxe reissues every few years and the Rolling Stones still have huge grossing tours. That is what the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame is about, although they're running out of big boomer acts. Notice they've generally skipped bands whose main popularity was in the 1980s and inducted 1990s era acts like Nirvana & Green Day. Green Day was inducted before Journey & Bon Jovi. Journey's 1st album came out in the 1970s, way before Nirvana existed. Chic has been nominated 10 times and has still not been inducted, and Nirvana got in the 1st year being eligible. But they're not considered disco like Chic, which Jann Wenner was not fond of.
 
Garth

Elvis was just an american artist. Not global. Not that much sales in the other continents. Everywhere in the World the sales for Michael Jackson are much higher than for the others.
You could say that for Garth Brooks. But he has 7 certified diamond albums (10 million) in the USA. Neither Mike, The Beatles, or Elvis Presley can say that. The Eagles can't either.
 
Re: Garth

You could say that for Garth Brooks. But he has 7 certified diamond albums (10 million) in the USA. Neither Mike, The Beatles, or Elvis Presley can say that. The Eagles can't either.

Yep. 98 % of Europe don't know who that guy is and never heard of him. Same I guess with Asia and Africa.
 
total albums Mike is 3.. per album Michael is #1.. Both Elvis and The Beatles have many many more albums than Michael.. MANY!

Now if we could only count J5, Jacksons, and MJ stuff together :)
If you do that, then you'd have to count the 4 solo Beatles stuff. I think Paul has released more solo albums than The J5/Jacksons put together and that's not including Wings or the records released under other names like The Fireman albums. Now if you count the many compilations Motown has released over the years, then they probably have Paul beat there. Jermaine Jackson has released more albums than Mike & Janet, although most of them came out in the 1970s & 1980s.
 
They both released a lot more albums than Michael so it’s not surprising.
 
Re: Garth

Yep. 98 % of Europe don't know who that guy is and never heard of him. Same I guess with Asia and Africa.
Country music is a big thing in the USA now, not far behind hip hop. It's been said that country has the highest ratio of CD sales in the USA today rather than streaming & downloading. Garth is probably the first country act to really get rock star blockbuster sales, although Kenny Rogers was the beginning of that and Dolly Parton to a lesser extent. Dolly was kinda more famous as a personality, than her albums selling as much as Kenny's did. Most country before them was generally not promoted to mainstream audiences. I think it was the popularity of the Smokey & the Bandit movie in the 1970s, is when country began to really crossover to the mainstream. Before that, sometimes a country song became a Top 40 pop hit, but country itself did not crossover. After Garth became big, then there was Brooks & Dunn, Shania Twain, Dixie Chicks, Billy Ray Cyrus, etc. Billy's daughter later became really popular herself. The Farm Aid fundraising concerts are primarily country and Americana rock acts.
 
Re: Garth

Actually in terms of pure albums sales according to best estimates MJ is slightly ahead of Elvis.
Only the Beatles have sold more.
But they are the media darlings, you know, and boast a larger discography.
 
Back
Top