it's a bit surreal to contemplate, but the biggest selling musical acts of 2009 could very well be artists who started releasing records 40+ years ago.

so who will it be?


and next week, will we have another rare case this year where the top selling album in the US is NOT the one perched at #1 on the main album chart?





(and yes, of course, before anyone says it, MJ will be the highest GROSSING act of 2009 because of his own work and his share of the Beatles publishing catalog.)

It'll probably be MJ if that "This Is It" soundtrack and brand new single gets released before year's end. If not, it could possibly be The Beatles since these are new re-releases rather than people just buying albums that have been available for awhile.

It'll be interesting.

Are the beatles re-release's being sold individually our just in the box set? Casue honestly as big as the Beatles are. There's not A TON of people who are gonna drop $200 for albums they already have.

P2daP said:

Not like Prince fans, you know (I am speaking of my self first and foremost)

Michael Jackson.

P2daP said:

the stereo versions are available individually.

Michael Jackson!

errant said:

Hmm should be intresting. I dont think re-matered albums have sold in huge number as far as i know. but thier's not many like the Beatles. But i still say it's Michael Jackson by a strong margin. As somone said with his "This is it" album and movie coming out and a new single on top of what he's already sold and what he will sell during x-mas. The beatles have the re-masters and alogn the heavy promotion of the video game but I'd say MJ comes out out top by a large amount.
[Edited 9/7/09 22:10pm]

P2daP said:

of course MJ's big sellers at the time of his death were Number Ones, Essential and Thriller 25. things that people who were into MJ 20 years ago and not since most likely didn't pick up when they were released. and by now (and Christmas) most people have already moved on.

people have been waiting 20 years for decent-sounding Beatles CD's. so, i don't know....

Both ways my man MJ is gonna get paid.

Interesting topic. It just goes to show that there aren't stars on the same level of MJ or The Beatles anymore, or that older people are still willing to buy music.

Moonbeam said:

your Beatles box set should arrive tomorrow

voyevoda said:

actually he's dead, so he's not getting anything out of it.

but otherwise, that's why i mentioned his ownership of their publishing in my original post so we could get it out of the way. but thanks for repeating it.

errant said:

Probably MJ.

The beetles box set is going to be expensive compared to just picking a copy of Thriller or Off The Wall for folks.

At least, I think.


I'm spooging over the details of the Beetles release though.

Imago said:

the Beatles albums are sold individually as well.

errant said:

Oh.
This will be a close call.

MJ's had quite a head start with his death and all. The Beetles will need a hell of a lot of momentum to catch him.

Imago said:

but two of them already died YEARS before MJ ever even considered it!


yeah, sorry, bad taste.

errant said:

I'm pitch'em , you bat'em

Can someone explain to an non-audiophile such as myself why the mono releases are so anticipated?

Imago said:

it's how they were originally intended to sound is basically the long and short of it.

errant said:

That seems like a novelty to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but i'd much prefer to what a sound engineer things they should sound like, given technology now.

Imago said:

i listened to a few of the mono ones in mono. they're better. i could actually hear stuff in them that i'd never heard before in the stereo versions.

voyevoda said: