Latest on MJJC

Wikipedia finally updated their list of best selling artists, Michael is second behind the Beatles with 500 million

IhateTheMedia

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2023
Messages
617
Points
93
Country
United-States
r6JsH3t.png
 
Wikipedia didn’t update anything, some user made this change. It’s only a matter of time until someone changes it back.

Sources for sale numbers are not particularly exact, so it’s very hard to determine who has sold more between MJ and Elvis.
 
dethorro said:
Wikipedia didn’t update anything, some user made this change. It’s only a matter of time until someone changes it back.

Sources for sale numbers are not particularly exact, so it’s very hard to determine who has sold more between MJ and Elvis.
Click to expand...
Elvis doesn't sell anything outside the United States and has had most of his certifications updated already, he's still behind MJ and the Beatles by nearly 80 million. So no he's not even close to either of them. The admins said Michael was long past the threshold for a update which is why he got changed to 500 million. It was stated Elvis when he eventually reaches 260 million he'll be bumped to 600 million. But since MJ and the Beatles sold significantly more then him, when that time comes they will also have to be bumped up.
 
I don't understand. Please can you articulate what is your problem with it? Or why you're mad?

IhateTheMedia said:
The admins said Michael was long past the threshold for a update which is why he got changed to 500 million
Click to expand...
Wikipedia doesn't have admins who determine what the articles say.

Also, "Claimed sales" are just that - claims. Record companies don't know how many copies are sold, so they make up anything they like (eg "Thriller sold 100 million" when it was only on about 40 million).
 
R1chard said:
I don't understand. Please can you articulate what is your problem with it? Or why you're mad?


Wikipedia doesn't have admins who determine what the articles say.

Also, "Claimed sales" are just that - claims. Record companies don't know how many copies are sold, so they make up anything they like (eg "Thriller sold 100 million" when it was only on about 40 million).
Click to expand...
I'm not mad, i'm happy that it finally got changed. Also Thriller has sold at least 70 million, 100 million is absolutely possible if a re-audit were done like Eagles did were they mysteriously found over 15 million record sales for it
 
As far as I am concerned only certified sold copies count. So the top 3 as it stands is the only truth out there
 
filmandmusic said:
As far as I am concerned only certified sold copies count. So the top 3 as it stands is the only truth out there
Click to expand...
For most artists, other than Michael all of their US sales have been tracked. The real contentious thing regarding certifications is the number of sales outside the US that could potentially be out there. Right now
  1. Ed Sheeran - 156,000,000
  2. Michael Jackson - 108,000,000
  3. Rihanna - 104,000,000
  4. Drake - 101,000,000
These are the only artists who've sold over 100 million internationally, MJ is missing a lot however
 
filmandmusic said:
As far as I am concerned only certified sold copies count. So the top 3 as it stands is the only truth out there
Click to expand...
In the pre digital download and streaming era, it was very hard to keep track of exact sales, hence why we hear the term "claimed sales."
 
Realistically how do people keep track of this stuff anyway, checking store purchase from over 60 years ago? Come into my house and count how many MJ CDs I got.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Realistically how do people keep track of this stuff anyway, checking store purchase from over 60 years ago? Come into my house and count how many MJ CDs I got.
Click to expand...
They use media claims, realistically only MJ and the Beatles sold over 500 million and the matter of who sold more can go either way.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Realistically how do people keep track of this stuff anyway, checking store purchase from over 60 years ago? Come into my house and count how many MJ CDs I got.
Click to expand...
In some cases, "sales" were actually product shipped to stores, not records actually sold. Unsold stock returned to the labels might still be part of the "sales", since it was originally shipped out. Sales did not generally count cutouts (records/tapes with a slash or hole punched in the cover sold for cheap), record clubs (10 albums for a penny!), street tapes (basically bootleg cassettes & 8-tracks that were sold at flea markets or parking lots), or promo copies that were sold in some record stores & nightclubs. Although the promos had "not for sale" stamped on them, lol. Sometimes the companies that distributed the stock to stores would keep some for themselves and sell them and they would get all of the money and not the labels and/or stores. Especially with mafia run distribution. Decades ago, people also sold bootlegs of concerts they recorded or unreleased songs by artists. One popular bootleg is called A Toot & A Snore In '74, which was a recording session with Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Stevie Wonder & a few other artists. Record stores also sold "interview discs", which were records given to radio stations. I don't think stuff like multi-artist compilations like K-Tel, Pickwick, & That's What I Call Music or songs on movie soundtracks is counted with an artist total sales. Except when it's a one artist soundtrack like Superfly (Curtis Mayfield) & Purple Rain (Prince). If a particular artist was a member of multiple bands (Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, George Harrison), each band is counted separately and not with their solo records.

Sales were also often faked before Soundscan. Payola was not just for radio airplay. Labels would also sometimes pay record stores to report to Billboard that a record sold more or less than it really did. The RIAA does not audit sales, they just go by what the labels tell them and reporting sales in voluntary. That's a reason that when Soundscan came into being, the charts totally changed. But not all stores had the Soundscan equipment, usually small mom & pop stores didn't have it. Places like Abu Dhabi, Russia, & China had black market records & tapes, which are not official. When CD burners came out, people would burn CDs & DVDs and sell them at their jobs & in their neighborhoods. Counting all of these sources, nobody really knows how much any record sold. Also for those older acts, total sales are not just albums, but physical singles too.
 
Back in the 80s chart composers would actually call record shops and ask the owners what singles are selling well. Only since the early 90s it is possible to find actual sales because of the soundscan system.
 
First and foremost, the Wikipedia page establishing the best-selling artists list of all time was up to be deleted many times mostly attributed by a vast majority of historical musical pundits stating for the record that the list had a credibility problem. Let me explain: The Wikipedia Best-selling list came under attack by many knowledgeable musical experts and pundits who accused the Wiki Editors of having an agenda in putting their preferential favorite artist as their best-selling artist of all time. Moreover, some of the Wiki editors kept coming under attack for not having a depth of knowledge and in the words of some of their readers, (and I quote), " Their lack of knowledge has only been exceeded by not knowing much about the subject at hand". Many who have done research on this particular subject are themselves asking "where is Bing Crosby"? who reputedly sold over 500 million records and thus, still has the best-selling single in the history of popular music "White Christmas". More and into the point, the omissions of other acts such as Nana Mouskouri whom many reputable organizations have named her one of the best-selling recording acts of all time. Many websites have gone on record stating that she has sold over 350 million records worldwide while singing in 15 different languages, and yet, she does not appear on Wikipedia's best-selling artist list. These actions have done an irreparable damage on the credibility of this best-selling Wikipedia directory list. Furthermore, the Elvis Presley and Beatle factor: In 1992 executives from the RIAA awarded Presley an astonishing 110 gold platinum and multiplatinum awards, more than any other recording act. And since then, after new independent audited figures, Presley has been awarded a total of 299 gold platinum and multiplatinum awards for albums and singles, again, more than any other recording act. All reputable global news organizations including but not limited to, The Guinness Book of World Records have respectfully stated without reservation That Elvis Presley has sold over a billion records and is the best-selling solo artist of all time. The Beatles have also captured all kinds of honors as the best-selling band of all time by selling according to EMI over a billion records and tapes. And yet these claimed sales numbers of over a billion units sold respectively by Presley and The Beatles, have been challenged without evidence by the Wiki editors and called "inflated figures" by these irresponsible journalistic wiki editors. These among many other reasons, are the factors that Wikipedia 's Best-selling artist list should not be accorded as a truthful unbiased and honest listing of best-selling artists based on factuality and objectivity. And in closing, there is Michael Jackson, who has also been shortchanged by the Wikipedia editors. He belongs up there with Elvis and the Beatles as perhaps the third act to have reached the billion-mark plateau in sales. In sum, this Wikipedia's best-selling artist list leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to truthfulness and nonpartisan objectivity. It should not be taken seriously....
 
I wrote the essay to be able to explain the inconsistencies as to why it should not be taken seriously. Michael could be 2 on a list or number 1 or maybe number three!! What difference does it make. The list is a fallacious travesty and should be eradicated. Don't you think? The RIAA best-selling artist list is posting Michael at number 6; Behind the Beatles, Garth Brooks, Elvis Led Zeppelin, and the Eagles. Check it out!! There're a hundred websites out there with their own best-selling listing directory. Does that take away from Jackson being a great entertainer? No!! He is still in my opinion, one of the greatest entertainers in the history of music!!
 
victormanuelabreu1964@gma said:
I wrote the essay to be able to explain the inconsistencies as to why it should not be taken seriously. Michael could be 2 on a list or number 1 or maybe number three!! What difference does it make. The list is a fallacious travesty and should be eradicated. Don't you think? The RIAA best-selling artist list is posting Michael at number 6; Behind the Beatles, Garth Brooks, Elvis Led Zeppelin, and the Eagles. Check it out!! There're a hundred websites out there with their own best-selling listing directory. Does that take away from Jackson being a great entertainer? No!! He is still in my opinion, one of the greatest entertainers in the history of music!!
Click to expand...
When the Beatles broke up they sold 133 million records, whereas Elvis Presley had sold 101 million records. By the end of the 1970s the Beatles sold up to 210 million whereas Elvis Presley sold around 170 million records. The media at the time when not being fed information from the record labels stated that using equivalent sales where 1 individual album sale counts as 5 units results in the Beatles having sold 420m records from 133m sales. Elvis Presley's sales were inflated using the same metric. For the Beatles to have outsold Michael Jackson they'd need to have sold another 300 million plus pure units from 1980 to 2009. This is pure nonsense.
Fmw1q7O.png
OKiKTGN.png
 
Well first of all you are discounting certain facts: Posthumously after August 16th, 1977, the day Elvis died and in the four months after the death of Presley, an estimated 200 Elvis million records were sold. In fact, according to reliable sources, including but not limited to, Billboard Magazine, Time Life books, and numerous Newspaper articles, RCA records (Presley's label) was using the pressing plants of other record labels to keep up with the demand. They were shipping and distributing Presley records by the millions, again and to reiterate, immediately after his passing. Presley sold so many units, intertwined between records, 8 tracks, cassettes, that by late 1981 RCA announced that he had surpassed the billion marks in unit sales. Moreover, keep in mind that Presley's career began in 1956. Before his passing RCA had claimed sales of 500 million units for Presley. After his death, he sold an astronomical number of records that according to RCA, made Presley reached the billion-mark milestone sometime in 1982. That is a documented record sales phenomenon. In fact, The Guinness of World records purported a claim of a billion units sold by Presley by 1983. Now to the Beatles, After the death of John Lennon, Beatle fans went out in droves to buy Beatle records. They sold so many records that EMI and Capitol records (The Beatles record label) made an announcement divulging grammatically that they had also reached the billion mark in unit sales by late 1985. This is fact not pure nonsense!! Furthermore, I also believe that based on evidence Michael Jackson has also reached that coveted billion-mark plateau!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top