Best-Selling Artists in U.S. of all time

[rick]

From

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States

No. / Artist / Certification in Millions

1 The Beatles 177
2 Elvis Presley 134.5
3 Garth Brooks 128
4 Led Zeppelin 111.5
5 Eagles 100
6 Billy Joel 81.5
7 Pink Floyd 74.5
8 Elton John 72
9 Barbra Streisand 71.5
(tie) AC/DC 71.5
11 Michael Jackson 70.5
12 George Strait 68.5
13 Aerosmith 66.5
(tie) The Rolling Stones 66.5
15 Bruce Springsteen 64.5
(tie) Madonna 64.5
17 Mariah Carey 63.5
18 Metallica 62
19 Whitney Houston 57
20 Van Halen 56.5

[the Scribe]

Isn't it possible that list is incorrect as some artists and their labels may be lax in certifications? Seems to me Harold (hot4daria) from our old forum site had a lot of insight into that topic.

[sliderocker]

Jan 8, 2013 12:58:13 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

Isn't it possible that list is incorrect as some artists and their labels may be lax in certifications? Seems to me Harold (hot4daria) from our old forum site had a lot of insight into that topic.

No question the list is incorrect, as far as the sales are concerned. The main reason that is so is because of the cost of the certification process. It's not a cheap process. I remember reading in the 90s that the cost was something like $3500 per certification. I can't even begin to guess what it could be now.

Another reason for the record labels being so lax on certifications could be the labels still owe quite a bit of money to the artists, and they don't want to give the artists (or their estates) ammunition for lawsuits. I think it's the record companies who initiate and pay for the audits which result in the albums being certified on sales, and not the artists. The artists usually pay for audits of the record labels's sales books when there is a question of royalties not being paid.

Another reason for lax sales - and this one probably applies to Linda - is that the artist or band is no longer signed to the record label on which they had most of their success. And the record companies are not interested in pushing for additional certifications for their former artists.

Curiously, the RIAA has no award for albums that sell more than 100,000 copies but less than 500,000 copies, numbers which could add to an artist's total. If the RIAA was to establish an award for albums selling under 500,000 copies, it's said Elvis Presley's sales total for instance, could jump to somewhere between 225 and 240 million, based on what RCA/BMG/Sony has available now on their sales books on his catalog. It's amazing that RCA could've lost their sales books which are needed for album certifications, but lost sales books could be the reason why the record companies don't seek more certifications. You need the documentation and if you don't have it, you can't get the certifications or the awards.

[the Scribe]

So what you are saying is that Linda, among others may be "short-changed" by a list like this? I would agree and would think her total is much higher.

[sliderocker]

Jan 8, 2013 17:08:21 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

So what you are saying is that Linda, among others may be "short-changed" by a list like this? I would agree and would think her total is much higher.

Definitely shortchanged as when the record company does not care enough to get the totals updated and the certifications made and awards given, one can get the impression that an artist is no longer selling. Linda's official total is 37.5 million in the US but I think it's been claimed her sales are at the minimum 45 million in the US, possibly as high as 75 million. If Linda had no market, you wouldn't have seen her albums reissued in the US on cd. But, her albums were reissued on CD, including her albums with the Stone Poneys although some were only available for a short time.

Linda's least successful albums might be like the ones by Elvis which are under the 500,000 gold radar. And they're not being counted in the RIAA total because of not selling 500,000 copies. The RIAA definitely needs another award category which would cover the sales of albums that are between 100,000 and 500,000 copies. The problem with that kind of award is that the majority of the top sellers would not see any major benefit as most of them do not have albums that have been less successful than others. But, an award for sales between 100-500,000 copies would benefit the artists who never got recognition in their day.

Still, it would be up to the record companies to get the certifications made and awards given. And some of them just don't care. RCA only started getting aggressive on getting the gold and platinum record awards for Elvis once the RIAA declared Garth Brooks the most successful male artist in the US. RCA cried foul and said "Bullsh*t!" to the RIAA's claim and they started looking for the sales books to put Elvis back on top. They're still looking.

Likewise, it was Rhino Records that was responsible for getting the Monkees's first five albums certified as platinum in the 90s. The albums actually met the qualifications for platinum when they were initially released in the 60s but the label which held the rights in the late 70s (Bell/Arista) when the platinum award came into existence made no effort to have the albums certified. And it was the Monkees's back catalog which primarily established the Rhino label. And as Rhino acquired everything on the Monkees except the publishing on the songs, they had a high regard for the group enough to submit the claims for platinum awards on the group's behalf. It'd be great if more labels were like Rhino in that regard but again, most just don't care and many have frosty relations with their former artists, so more certifications for some artists isn't likely.

[the Scribe]

So it is most likely that those listed here at the top may have record companies that did the right thing and got their artists certified sales and those near the bottom of the list didn't?

[sliderocker]

Jan 9, 2013 12:23:48 GMT -5 the Scribe said:

So it is most likely that those listed here at the top may have record companies that did the right thing and got their artists certified sales and those near the bottom of the list didn't?

I would say so, although that yes might be a qualified yes. Capitol is very aggressive on getting the Beatles certified at every turn whereas Garth Brooks's total (same label) has remained at 128 million for several years. Brooks' total was at 128 million at a time when Elvis's total was 119 million - now Elvis's total is 6.5 million ahead of Brooks and RCA/BMG/Sony is still searching. Two of Elvis's Christmas albums (reissues, not original) sold enough this past Christmas season to qualify for gold and platinum awards, so his total will increase.

Most of the other totals have also been at their levels for several years, although I think the Eagles and Led Zeppelin are exceptions to that rule, as far as the certifications and awards are concerned. Rather surprising that Billy Joel sold 81.5 million - surprising that he is ahead of Michael Jackson by eleven million albums. Jackson's fans probably would dispute that although part of the problem with his sales is that he didn't have that many solo albums that were available in the stores. To have sales, you've got to have product in the stores or available through internet or mail order sales.

But, I think the only certifications and awards you're going to see will be on the Beatles and Elvis for sure, and possibly the Eagles and Led Zeppelin. Everyone else is pretty much stagnant, though many of them probably have had more sales than showing on this list. However, I do think some are finished, as far as the sales are concerned.