This gives a decent introduction to King George,... got all his albums on the shelf here in Belgium!

.

.

https://youtu.be/w_KdJvFKUgI

.

[Edited 11/3/20 12:26pm]

RODSERLING said:

What about Guns N' Roses? Or did Use Your Illusion I and II not sell as much as I'm thinking it did?

rogifan said:

20. Van Halen - 56.5M

I wonder what the ratio is between the Diamond Dave albums & Van Hagar. I don't think the sales of the Gary Cherone album makes much of a difference.

MickyDolenz said:

rogifan said:

20. Van Halen - 56.5M

I wonder what the ratio is between the Diamond Dave albums & Van Hagar. I don't think the sales of the Gary Cherone album makes much of a difference.

about 34 -18 Dave over Sammy, but to be fair Dave had six albums and Sammy had 4, but Dave was there for both diamond albums. The rest of their sales is from the two compilations, the live record that Sammy did is counted in his total, the one with Dave did poorly.

Like I said in the other thread: fucking Garth Brooks. Not that I'm surprised surprised, as I know of his sales for a number of years already, but yeah, I'm surprised by his numbers.

I'm surprised that Michael Jackson is so far down the list. I know that a lot of years have past since "Thriller" but I still figured he would be higher up on the list. But then again, he went years between albums so he didn't make a lot of albums.

.

I'm just glad that nobody past the 1980s made the list.

vainandy said:

I'm surprised that Michael Jackson is so far down the list. I know that a lot of years have past since "Thriller" but I still figured he would be higher up on the list. But then again, he went years between albums so he didn't make a lot of albums.

.

I'm just glad that nobody past the 1980s made the list.

Garth Brooks is pretty much a 1990s act even though his first album came out in 1989. Starting with Thriller, Michael Jackson would just milk 1 album for 2 or 3 years.

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

I'm surprised that Michael Jackson is so far down the list. I know that a lot of years have past since "Thriller" but I still figured he would be higher up on the list. But then again, he went years between albums so he didn't make a lot of albums.

.

I'm just glad that nobody past the 1980s made the list.

Garth Brooks is pretty much a 1990s act even though his first album came out in 1989. Starting with Thriller, Michael Jackson would just milk 1 album for 2 or 3 years.

Garth Brooks was country which was never a threat to funk so I'm fine with him.

vainandy said:

I'm surprised that Michael Jackson is so far down the list. I know that a lot of years have past since "Thriller" but I still figured he would be higher up on the list. But then again, he went years between albums so he didn't make a lot of albums.

.

I'm just glad that nobody past the 1980s made the list.

He would be higher if the Jacksons and Jackson 5 would be included and Motown would bother to get old albums certified. So it's not counting his whole career.

[Edited 12/16/20 16:12pm]

PatrickS77 said:

He would be higher if the Jacksons and Jackson 5 would be included and Motown would bother to get old albums certified. So it's not counting his whole career.

If they are gonna do that then all of the solo Beatles & Eagles albums could be added to their total. Although with the Eagles it was mainly Don Henley who had the really successful solo career, unless you count the Joe Walsh records before he joined the band.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

He would be higher if the Jacksons and Jackson 5 would be included and Motown would bother to get old albums certified. So it's not counting his whole career.

If they are gonna do that then all of the solo Beatles & Eagles albums could be added to their total. Although with the Eagles it was mainly Don Henley who had the really successful solo career, unless you count the Joe Walsh records before he joined the band.

And once again I have to say, so what? It doesn't change the fact that it doesn't count his whole career and that Michael Jackson sold more albums than Billy Joel and has a higher total. If you count Paul McCartney's or Don Henley's net worth, you also don't only look at the money they made as solo artists.

PatrickS77 said:

And once again I have to say, so what? It doesn't change the fact that it doesn't count his whole career and that Michael Jackson sold more albums than Billy Joel and has a higher total. If you count Paul McCartney's or Don Henley's net worth, you also don't only look at the money they made as solo artists.

That could kinda make a lot of inaccuracies for anyone who has been in a band & had a solo career too. In theory, let's say The J5/Jacksons sold 100 million records. Randy had an album out with his group called Randy & The Gypsys. The Jacksons albums could be added to his or Marlon's solo sales. Then that would make both of them more successful than Madonna or Aerosmith. I don't think most people are gonna buy that.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

Randy never was an official member of the Jackson 5. But for sure when Randy talks about his career he is, rightfully, proud over what he achieved with the Jacksons. Of course one could, also rightfully, argue that he laid in a made bed and only joined an already established band. Admittedly things get murky for side men like him. But Michael always was front and center. He was the lead singer. McCartney was a singer and a main songwriter. Same as Don Henley. So they are not compareable to Randy Jackson. And in the case of Michael, he spent many years as the lead singer of a band and just 3 years later also was a solo act for many years in a career that eclipsed his former band. It wasn't just an afterthought. Same as Justin Timberlake or Lionel Richie or Robbie Williams or Diana Ross or Beyonce or Tina Turner and whoever else, who was both succesful as part of a band and a solo act. That has to be looked at differently than Randy Jackson's career.

I don't think the RIAA or record companies pick out which member was on what album. They don't even count the J5/Jacksons as different groups. Van Halen sales are Van Halen, they are not split into the sales for DLR's Van Halen or Sammy's Van Halen or Van Halen with Eddie's son and not Michael Anthony. They just go by total sales. There's groups like The Temptations & Fleetwood Mac who has had at least 20 different official members over the years. I doubt it if they are gonna give a total to David Ruffin or Peter Green they're going to add only the group albums they were on. There's a reason band & solo albums are not counted together. The Grammy Awards have been known to nominate solo acts who came out of a group as Best New Artist like Jody Watley. It's not like she came out of some obscure local bar band either. Shalamar was fairly well known, at least to the R&B audience.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

Randy never was an official member of the Jackson 5. But for sure when Randy talks about his career he is, rightfully, proud over what he achieved with the Jacksons. Of course one could, also rightfully, argue that he laid in a made bed and only joined an already established band. Admittedly things get murky for side men like him. But Michael always was front and center. He was the lead singer. McCartney was a singer and a main songwriter. Same as Don Henley. So they are not compareable to Randy Jackson. And in the case of Michael, he spent many years as the lead singer of a band and just 3 years later also was a solo act for many years in a career that eclipsed his former band. It wasn't just an afterthought. Same as Justin Timberlake or Lionel Richie or Robbie Williams or Diana Ross or Beyonce or Tina Turner and whoever else, who was both succesful as part of a band and a solo act. That has to be looked at differently than Randy Jackson's career.

I don't think the RIAA or record companies pick out which member was on what album. They don't even count the J5/Jacksons as different groups. Van Halen sales are Van Halen, they are not split into the sales for DLR's Van Halen or Sammy's Van Halen or Van Halen with Eddie's son and not Michael Anthony. They just go by total sales. There's groups like The Temptations & Fleetwood Mac who has had at least 20 different official members over the years. I doubt it if they are gonna give a total to David Ruffin or Peter Green they're going to add only the group albums they were on. There's a reason band & solo albums are not counted together. The Grammy Awards have been known to nominate solo acts who came out of a group as Best New Artist like Jody Watley. It's not like she came out of some obscure local bar band either. Shalamar was fairly well known, at least to the R&B audience.

Yes. So we have another "unfair" distinction. The Jackson 5 and the Jacksons are viewed as 2 different acts by RIAA and Billboard and Grammy and so on, because the name changed, while Van Halen and Temptations are always the same thing, even though members were not. Of course, from Billboard's and whoevers point of view that makes sense and is justified. But from a fan/nerd point of view, comparing career achievements, it doesn't and is unfair. Guns N' Roses with only Axl Rose in the band for me, as a fan, is NOT Guns N' Roses. Even though for everyone else and especially entities like RIAA it is.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

Randy never was an official member of the Jackson 5. But for sure when Randy talks about his career he is, rightfully, proud over what he achieved with the Jacksons. Of course one could, also rightfully, argue that he laid in a made bed and only joined an already established band. Admittedly things get murky for side men like him. But Michael always was front and center. He was the lead singer. McCartney was a singer and a main songwriter. Same as Don Henley. So they are not compareable to Randy Jackson. And in the case of Michael, he spent many years as the lead singer of a band and just 3 years later also was a solo act for many years in a career that eclipsed his former band. It wasn't just an afterthought. Same as Justin Timberlake or Lionel Richie or Robbie Williams or Diana Ross or Beyonce or Tina Turner and whoever else, who was both succesful as part of a band and a solo act. That has to be looked at differently than Randy Jackson's career.

I don't think the RIAA or record companies pick out which member was on what album. They don't even count the J5/Jacksons as different groups. Van Halen sales are Van Halen, they are not split into the sales for DLR's Van Halen or Sammy's Van Halen or Van Halen with Eddie's son and not Michael Anthony. They just go by total sales. There's groups like The Temptations & Fleetwood Mac who has had at least 20 different official members over the years. I doubt it if they are gonna give a total to David Ruffin or Peter Green they're going to add only the group albums they were on. There's a reason band & solo albums are not counted together. The Grammy Awards have been known to nominate solo acts who came out of a group as Best New Artist like Jody Watley. It's not like she came out of some obscure local bar band either. Shalamar was fairly well known, at least to the R&B audience.

Funny thing with the Best New Artist category that has been a long disputed because of some of the winners, like Jody Watley but also Lauryn Hill and even Cyndi Lauper, all had groups they were with released music, never should have been nominated. And artists were disqualified who would have EASILY won, Whitney Houston was disqualified because of the duet Hold Me with Teddy Pendergrass, and Richard Marx who easily would have won having 4 top five singles and a platnum debut album, but he was disqualified because in 1985 he was on a Soundtrack for the film "Nothing In Common" that starred Tom Hanks and was Jackie Gleasons last film, had it not been his last film no one would have known this film was out, as Tom Hanks at the time was still under the radar.