Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 1

message: For the source for Celine Dion and Neil Young seen here, you can clearly see that someone deliberately made that site in order to highlight their artists. That website lacks authority and should not be cited as a source. 
I am certain that you can all notice that the information in the website was 'cut and pasted' from this site unto theirs and the figures were manipulated. The writing is in the same font and in the same format as the one on this page. Furthermore, the person who made the site is, like, 10 years old; they had pictures of 'their graduation'. Shouldn't we try to get reliable source? If we use that source, its like we are inviting other people to go out and make websites with unsupported info and cite it as a source. 
Journalist 02:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No cheating

message: One example is Fariouz: here in the list claims she sold 35M in the US, while she doesn't figure on the RIAA's top 100 ( see riaa.com bestsellers top artists) - there seems to be at least 25 who sold under the given figure and are on the list.
Also, I can hardly imagine that Michael Jackson is so low on the list. Remember, so far he's the one with the single highest selling album worldwide.
* He's also one of the acts with the fewest releases, hence he has less to ad on to it. Result - lower on the list than an big act who's released 3 times as many albums. 195.93.21.40 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies and unlikely figures

message: Who is listing Karyn White while forgetting these best selling artists?
*Garth Brooks
*Shania Twain
*Phil Collins
*Rod Stewart
*Prince
*Michael Jackson
*Tina Turner
*Cher
*Kenny Rogers
*Neil Diamond
Also, let's try to rank them by worldwide sales.  The numbers are jumping all over the place.
:I agree, who could not understand to put them in order of sales.--Jerryseinfeld 19:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.--Jerryseinfeld 19:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Garth Brooks

message: Janet has NOT sold 100 million records!
Where is your source for that? I demand to know!
It sounds like it came from www.notachanceinhell.com! MadonnaFan
:Then you can edit it like you see fit. - Jerryseinfeld 23:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Janet Jackson

message: What's up User:Rmhermen? 11 artists/groups to many for you? Please don't remove anything before discussing it here, okay? - Jerryseinfeld 21:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals 

message: List of best selling music artists was moved to Best selling music artists in US. Please don't do that. - Jerryseinfeld 22:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I found a link which say she won an award for selling 150 million "albums", so I guess it can be 195 million albums and singles.--Jerryseinfeld 19:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mariah Carey 

message: Each line links to a an empty url (i.e. [[http://]).  Should these be pointing somewhere?  If not, I'll removed them and hard-code in numbers. -- Kaszeta 19:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When so, and you add a new line item, do you notice how you have to update the line below it?--Jerryseinfeld 18:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the empty links? 

message: Shania has reportedly sold over 80 Million worldwide with only 4 albums,
This list is a load of BS!
And I sold 5 billion albums. :-)
:You'd better watch what you say. Twain's album, Come on Over sold 39 million copies worldwide, and with Up! and The Woman In Me (16 and 18 million copies respectively), that comes to a total of 74 million albums sold. Her debut record was a flop, but managed to sell 2 million coming up to 76 million. Finally, her greatest hits has currently sold four miilion, upping the total to eighty million. HAH!
The remaining four or five million copies are composed of her various singles sold, including "Any Man of Mine", "You're Still the One", "From This Moment On", "That Don't Impress Me Much", "Up!", "Forever and for Always", "Party for Two", and her other singles. 64.231.160.162 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shania Twain 

message: Look at how many times this article have suffered removed listings and removed links (article history).--Jerryseinfeld 18:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed information 

message: Why was the sales figures for ABBA changed from 370 millions to 250 millions by Vorash in edit '23:54 2005 May 21'? This is not consistent with what the ABBA page says. Does Vorash have any sources? 
I hope it has nothing to do with his changing Nana_Mouskouri from 250 to 300 millions and wanting her to have a better position than ABBA. I changed the figures back to reflect the contents of the ABBA page.
- Killenheladagen
370 milion figure doesn't have any sources so far.Vorash 12:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABBA 

message: Vorash has put a lot of effort into trying to improve this list and article, which was previously completely worthless.  Some comments:
* For 1950s and 1960s artists only using US RIAA album sales is misleading.  These artists sold a lot of singles back then, especially in less affluent markets where albums were too expensive.  For example, even in the UK, I believe the Beatles sold more singles than albums during their active period.  (No, I don't have a source for this at the moment.)  So I think only counting albums, or only extrapolating from US album figures, is misleading for such artists.
* As I'm sure Vorash realizes, trying to estimate worldwide sales from US sales is fraught with danger.  It obviously breaks down for artists that are from non-English speaking countries, and probably also breaks down for mostly English-language artists who also record in non-English languages (think Dion or Estefan).  Also, there seem to be some arbitrary low ratios assigned ... for instance Neil Diamond gets no extra worldwide sales at all, when I happen to know at the least he's very popular in the UK (I went to a sold-out arena show of his there).
* Why is the table broken into two parts with a "==-==" divider that shows up in the table of contents?
Good effort overall, as I said.  Wasted Time R 14:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Vorash's work 

message: Vorash, you jumped the shark when you added the "genre" column to this table.  I don't know what you think "synth pop" is, but almost all of the artists you put in that genre don't belong there, as a look at the artists that are listed in the WP synth pop article will show you.  You've also created artificial distinctions between "rock" and "rock and roll" (WP redirects these together and doesn't really try to distinguish them), and the distinction between "rock" and "hard rock" is also difficult to make reliably (the WP hard rock article only lists a few examples).  And some of these acts are on the list precisely because they bridged a gap between genres, which will make them inherently difficult to place.
I would suggest just getting rid of this column.  The purpose of this article is to try to figure out worldwide record sales, not to engage in pigeonholing of musical artists.   Wasted Time R 12:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Synth pop is a style of popular music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument. While it might be argued that most current popular and commercial music in the industrialized world is realized via electronic instruments, synth pop has its own stylistic tendencies which differentiate it from other music produced by the same means. These include: the exploitation of artificiality (the synthesizers are not used to imitate acoustic instruments), the use of mechanical rhythms and "feel", the use of vocal arrangements as a counterpoint to the artificiality of the instruments, and the use of ostinato patterns as an effect. Synth pop song forms are generally the same as in "regular" pop music. Lyrically, synth pop has an affection for science-fiction themes. (Emphasis mine)
It continues with a list of artists who are generally regarded as reflective of the genre. If you are unfamiliar with them, you should become acquainted with their work, as this will help make it clear that synth pop is a specific genre, and is not just a synonym for pop music. --ProhibitOnions 17:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Its not a single Source !!!!!!!! All Entries that you have there were submited by totally different people !!! All these people write styles when they submit a record(CD or vinyl)
Nobody guides them !! Its like in wikipedia !!!!Vorash 17:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  This article has enough of a burden in trying to document record sales, it shouldn't include extraneous controversial analysis.  Wasted Time R 17:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what does it mean "Standards" ? :) Vorash 19:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pop Standards.
I've tidied the article a bit and taken out the genre column, because it was controversial and, based on the discussion, distracted from the focus of the article (accurate music sales). Genre information is available on each artist, and it's not usually something that can be distilled into a word or two. Vorash, keep up the good work hunting down the sales statistics. --ProhibitOnions 17:49, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Well i can agree to remove any controversial genres, like "Synth pop" Vorash 17:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Genre" column no good

message: There is no need for the "number of albums" column (which predates the current work).  It's too hard to calculate (you have to know about out-of-print records), it ignores singles, and it's unnecessary – the "years active" column conveys the length of career, which is what we're interested in.  (BTW a little amazing that the top act is the only one with a single-decade-only career ...)    Wasted Time R 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what tyou mean ""number of albums" column.?...its column for source link or explanation on what estimation based on( on what numbers)...you want to write estimation without explanation ?Vorash 01:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean the column "Albums" that comes after "Names" and before "Worldwide Sales".   Wasted Time R 01:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well i dont know...........you think it will not be intersting to see ratio between sales and number of albums ?.........in case of Nana Mouskouri that has 450 albums ( if its true) its quite interesting no?..........Vorash 01:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the table's total sales count includes albums, EPs, and singles, so you're not going to know the sales:albums ratios even if you do have the number of albums.  You're a computer programmer, so you should be familiar with the principle of orthogonal design.  This article should just try to do one thing:  list sales volume for top artists.  That's going to be hard enough as it is!  Let the Mouskouri article figure out if she really released 450 albums.  Let the Madonna article figure out if her genre is synth pop or dance/pop or just plain pop or whatever. Focus on one thing.  (Having the nationality and years active information violates orthogonality but is ok in practice, since the information is easy to obtain and rarely changes.)   Wasted Time R 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Albums" column pointless 

message: It looks to me (especially based on the sales figure) that this should be TLC. --FuriousFreddy 00:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "TLS"? 

message: I think Dylan's numbers must be grossly underestimated here, probably due to counting only figures from the first few months after album releases. Selections from his back catalog are among the most frequently repurchased during media transitions (vinyl-to-CD, etc.,.), and I'm sure his overall numbers would rise by at least a third if this were properly accounted for. JDG 08:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan 

message: been following these for some time... in 2001 RIAA said his total was 60 million, he was more or less equal with elton john and they were gradually awarding him certifications, there'd been no "holding back". RIAA then upped his total to 100 million on the 25th anniversary of his death - are we to really expect he sold his 100 millionth sale on that precise day, or even year and that riaa just happened to magically discover tens of millions of previously unregistered sales? now its 117 million, in otherwords we're expected to believe that elvis is selling more records now in the usa than at the height of his popularity in the 50s! between 2001 and today that means elvis sold 57 million records, between the 1950s and 2001 he sold 60 million records. it's blatant figure rigging to reflect a p.r event.
:Can you please provide us a some link to "2001 RIAA 60 milion" figure ? Vorash 15:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  elvis american sales 

message: How come Britney Spears is listed at number 1 and at the same time at number 29? :-) -- NicApicella, 16/Jun/2005
If you see an obvious case of Vandalism why you are not correcting it ??Vorash 00:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britney twice? 

message: Destiny's Child should be moved up to the 100 million albums group.  It says so on Kelly Rowland's official website under the Ms. Kelly heading. 
:A founding member and vocal superstar in Destiny's Child, Kelly Rowland proved a major contributing force to the group's record-breaking global popularity as Destiny's Child racked up sales of more than 100 million records worldwide while earning two Grammy Awards in the Best R&B Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocals category (2000: "Say My Name"; 2001: "Survivor"). 
Jdot01 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destiny's Child