Azz said:

Nonsense.

India's music industry is far smaller than the US and smaller even than the UK...

I clearly said "theorectically". So what's nonsense about it?

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Well, if the poster was official, why would 6th place get a bigger picture than 1st place, and what happened to 10th place?

Exactly my point.

It also has a Wikipedia logo, and I don't know how that's a reliable source for anything.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Exactly my point.

It also has a Wikipedia logo, and I don't know how that's a reliable source for anything.

Wikipedians have taken Nana out of its best-selling artists list because they added sources that say it's inaccurate to state how much she sold. So there's that. There's also an RIAA symbol there and they only count the U.S. sales.

LiLi1992 said:

musicjunky318 said:

Where's Britney?

I agree.
singles + albums Britney sold a lot more than 100 million
Rihanna has sold more too (especially due to its huge sales of singles)

I'm assuming that the album totals are for actual albums (as outdated as that may seem now) and not adding up albums and singles separately. But, I can't be sure. Would be nice if they explained the methodology.

[Edited 9/20/13 13:25pm]

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

It also has a Wikipedia logo, and I don't know how that's a reliable source for anything.

Wikipedians have taken Nana out of its best-selling artists list because they added sources that say it's inaccurate to state how much she sold. So there's that. There's also an RIAA symbol there and they only count the U.S. sales.

You can't really prove anyone's record sales. It's just numbers the labels put out, like RCA saying Elvis Presley sold a billion, or that Thriller suddenly going from 70 milion to 104 million, or the Eagles Greatest hits. Other labels didn't report sales at all, to avoid paying royalties to the acts. Then there's the cases where labels buy their own records to spike the charts. As far as I know, the RIAA does not audit sales, they just go by whatever the labels tell them. There's also the "street tapes" (cassette & 8-tracks) in the 1970's and 1980's. The street tapes were bootlegs of albums, and in the case of 8-tracks sometimes didn't have the picture of the album, but maybe a cartoon picture of something like people dancing or musical notes.

Didn't Prince say once that he didn't know how much Purple Rain sold, only what Warners told him? I've heard several acts from the past that said their labels gave them fake gold and platinum record awards. One of them said they tried to take it to the pawn shop, and it was just a regular vinyl record spray painted. If the labels lie to their employees (like having 2 sets of books, one to show their acts or IRS if asked), what makes anyone think that the numbers that are fed to the media are accurate?

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Wikipedians have taken Nana out of its best-selling artists list because they added sources that say it's inaccurate to state how much she sold. So there's that. There's also an RIAA symbol there and they only count the U.S. sales.

You can't really prove anyone's record sales. It's just numbers the labels put out, like RCA saying Elvis Presley sold a billion, or that Thriller suddenly going from 70 milion to 104 million, or the Eagles Greatest hits. Other labels didn't report sales at all, to avoid paying royalties to the acts. Then there's the cases where labels buy their own records to spike the charts. As far as I know, the RIAA does not audit sales, they just go by whatever the labels tell them. There's also the "street tapes" (cassette & 8-tracks) in the 1970's and 1980's. The street tapes were bootlegs of albums, and in the case of 8-tracks sometimes didn't have the picture of the album, but maybe a cartoon picture of something like people dancing or musical notes.

Even 70 million for Thriller is not accurate. I'm at UK Mix now and his sales are broken down to somewhere between 52 and 55 million, still way above every other album. I agree though, labels definitely post these numbers no matter how inaccurate they are. The Beatles tried suing Capitol after they made those billion claims.

MickyDolenz said:

Didn't Prince say once that he didn't know how much Purple Rain sold, only what Warners told him? I've heard several acts from the past that said their labels gave them fake gold and platinum record awards. One of them said they tried to take it to the pawn shop, and it was just a regular vinyl record spray painted. If the labels lie to their employees (like having 2 sets of books, one to show their acts or IRS if asked), what makes anyone think that the numbers that are fed to the media are accurate?

Many Motown acts can attest to that.

Timmy84 said:

Even 70 million for Thriller is not accurate. I'm at UK Mix now and his sales are broken down to somewhere between 52 and 55 million, still way above every other album. I agree though, labels definitely post these numbers no matter how inaccurate they are. The Beatles tried suing Capitol after they made those billion claims.

Back when they had the record clubs like Columbia House, those were not counted as official sales, and I don't think the acts got any royalties from them. I know used record stores usually don't accept CDs from record clubs, although they might take the records.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Even 70 million for Thriller is not accurate. I'm at UK Mix now and his sales are broken down to somewhere between 52 and 55 million, still way above every other album. I agree though, labels definitely post these numbers no matter how inaccurate they are. The Beatles tried suing Capitol after they made those billion claims.

Back when they had the record clubs like Columbia House, those were not counted as official sales, and I don't think the acts got any royalties from them. I know used record stores usually don't accept CDs from record clubs, although they might take the records.

It's quite interesting (and sad) how this business has operated the way it has over the years...

Let's deal: All of these records will be broken. Population on Earth is growing, Africa is becoming more and more economically stable, and once when China regulate its market (and stop piracy) even The Beatles are not safe. Even a though, albums are selling less and it's an old, dated and dying fromat, the sales of the singles, was never bigger.

Even without Africa and China, the records will be broken. For example, Taylor Swift has sold over 26 million albums and 75 million singles. That's 101 million records! Forbes estimates that she is worth over $220 million, and she's only 23! Mariah, Madonna and Janet for example, needed decades to achieve that!

[Edited 9/20/13 17:12pm]

JanetSerbia said:

All of these records will be broken.

Music audiences are too fragmented now. There's more genres and sub-genres now. There is no particular act that is all around popular, and free downloading cuts into any sales. When you can sell 10,000 copies and have a #1 album, and then fall off the chart in a few weeks, there is no staying power. Back when The Beatles and Elvis Presley were around, there were only 3 networks, so many more people were watching the same thing (ie. Ed Sullivan Show).

.

Decades ago, labels were more willing to build an act, even if they are not successful in the beginning. Today, if they are not a big hit right out the box, an act is more likely to be dropped. There's other things in competition with music and/or took its place with some people. I imagine Grand Theft Auto 5 will sell more than the average album release.

.

As far as singles go, they're not physical singles, so are not reaching an audience that does not download or have a credit card to do online purchasing. A few songs are still released as 45s/EPs, but they cost anywhere from $5 (US) - $10, and you can buy the whole album for that.

MickyDolenz said:

Azz said:

Nonsense.

India's music industry is far smaller than the US and smaller even than the UK...

I clearly said "theorectically". So what's nonsense about it?

If the word 'theoretically' gives credence to a ridiculous point then nothing.

Azz said:

MickyDolenz said:

I clearly said "theorectically". So what's nonsense about it?

If the word 'theoretically' gives credence to a ridiculous point then nothing.

You must be one of those people who takes things too seriously, like folks who corrects english.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Even 70 million for Thriller is not accurate. I'm at UK Mix now and his sales are broken down to somewhere between 52 and 55 million, still way above every other album. I agree though, labels definitely post these numbers no matter how inaccurate they are. The Beatles tried suing Capitol after they made those billion claims.

Back when they had the record clubs like Columbia House, those were not counted as official sales, and I don't think the acts got any royalties from them. I know used record stores usually don't accept CDs from record clubs, although they might take the records.

I've never had a used record shop turn any of my Columbia House CDs away.

Timmy84 said:

Even 70 million for Thriller is not accurate. I'm at UK Mix now and his sales are broken down to somewhere between 52 and 55 million, still way above every other album. I agree though, labels definitely post these numbers no matter how inaccurate they are. The Beatles tried suing Capitol after they made those billion claims.

Truth. Madonna had 200 million records sold 10 years ago (according to her official website and record company), and now, all of sudden, when she can't enter the To 30 in the UK (her main market) she sold 100 million records more haha

And I love how JANET don't give a damn about the numbers. She could release a "fake" statment that she have sold 250 million records, but no. She won't do it cause she knows that ordinary people doesn't care about nubers. They care about music and that's what makes an artist legendary. They can brake your records, but they can't break your art.

[Edited 9/22/13 11:27am]

JanetSerbia said:

" They can brake your records, but they can't break your art."

Now that's the WINNING line for the Month of September...LOL...Love it....

*********************************************************************************

Now back to this Nana Mouskouri Chick(whoever the Hell she is)..Her net worth is $280-Million...I think that makes her the RICHEST female singer in the world along with being the BEST selling Female artist in the world..LOL...It sorta makes sense whrn you think about it...Why is Greece in debt when they can pick up the phone and CALL Nana to pay the bills?