Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson Album Sales After Death: An In-Depth Look

beeltles and evils LMAO!!!

:p

well, I was born in India (though I've been in the US for the past 30 years) and I can tell you MJ causes madness there whereas the Beeltles cause a few whimsical smiles and various nods of heads and evils perhaps an eyebrow raise or two.

the beeltles and evils are western singers with large followings... but MJ is the King of Pop. even in India, China, Malaysia, etc.
 
With recent data available, HIStory should now be up to 9 million copies sold in Europe alone, Dangerous over 12 million, Bad over 14 million and Thriller well over 17 million. Remembering that since IFPI introduced its European certification (1994), none album ever reached 10 million, those figures are from an other world.

Best selling studio albums in Europe, 1995-2009:

#1 Celine Dion Let's Talk About Love
#2 Spice Girls Spice
#3 Michael Jackson History
#4 Alanis Morissette Jagged Little Pill
#5 Shania Twain Come On Over

Only two studio albums sold more than HIStory in Europe in the last 15 years. Pretty outstanding, not only it tops albums like Come On Over or Morning Glory, but it was also double-priced which means it was just about as big as Thriller in a gross point of view.

Best selling studio albums in Europe, 1990-2009:

#1 Michael Jackson Dangerous
#2 Whitney Houston Bodyguard
#3 Celine Dion Let's Talk About Love

None studio album has ever reached sales of Dangerous since it was released.

Best selling studio albums in Europe, 1985-2009:

#1 Dire Straits Brothers In Arms
#2 Michael Jackson Bad
#3 Phil Collins But Seriously
#4 Michael Jackson Dangerous
#5 Whitney Houston Bodyguard
#6 U2 The Joshua Tree

None studio album has ever reached sales of Bad since it was released since it was released as well. Brothers In Arms was released 2 years prior to it, with recent surge 'Bad' sales have now almost matched sales of BIA (about 200,000 copies away).

Best selling studio albums in Europe, ever:

#1 Michael Jackson Thriller
#2 Dire Straits Brothers In Arms
#3 Michael Jackson Bad

Just like Bad and Dangerous, since Thriller was released no album ever matched it.
 
indranee said:
beeltles and evils LMAO!!!

:p
Click to expand...

Oh I just caught that typo! :D It wasn’t intentional. :smilerolleyes:

indranee said:
well, I was born in India (though I've been in the US for the past 30 years) and I can tell you MJ causes madness there whereas the Beeltles cause a few whimsical smiles and various nods of heads and evils perhaps an eyebrow raise or two.

the beeltles and evils are western singers with large followings... but MJ is the King of Pop. even in India, China, Malaysia, etc.
Click to expand...

This is very true, and from where I come from there are people who doesn’t even know the beetles, but MJ is the most famous person on earth without doubt and that happened from his music. If everyone in India purchased a copy of Michael’s record then he will be well over 1 billion sales, that’s India alone! What about the rest of world! I donno why some people find it hard to believe.
 
Reading this thread is interesting, but also a bit amusing. The only thing that's pretty clear is that MJ, Elvis and the Beatles sold unbelievable amounts of records.

Comparisons between the three can never be 100% objective, even in the unlikely event that we would have the exact sales figures for each act. The main reason for this is that each of them had his/their heyday at a different point in history.

1) MJ was for example able to sell a lot of records in, say, Eastern Europe while that market was closed at the time when Elvis and the Beatles were active.

2) The world population continues to grow, so since there were more people in the 1980's than in the 1950's, more people were also buying records.

3) In the 1950's when the world was still recovering from world war II kids had less money to spend than from, say, the 1960's onwards.

4) Up until the mid-1960's when the Beatles and Bob Dylan changed all that the 45rpm was the most important medium for selling popular music.

5) The Beatles released on average two albums per year, Elvis two or three per year (plus a truckload of compilations, movie soundtracks and live albums) - MJ one or two per decade. On the one hand this gives an advantage to the Beatles and (especially) Elvis since there is more product to buy for fans. On the other hand, if MJ had released new albums six months after "Thriller" or "Bad" sales figures probably would have been different.

I think that some people here underestimate the commercial and cultural impact that Elvis, the Beatles and others have had. Maybe this has to do with a certain lack of knowledge about musical history, but most of it probably has to do with the prejudices that you have on any fan forum. Go talk at a Elvis and Beatles forum about all this and you would get the same thing. There are many ways to explain sales figures and chart statistics, and everyone can more or less interpret them the way he or she wants.
 
Arabian Knight said:
No one knows that for sure. What we know that it was “officially” announced on a reputable awards show and backed up by Guinness World Records. That’s enough for me, and most probably enough for all of us MJ fans to support MJ. Even if they were wrong, they must be declared wrong not by referring to Wiki-fake-pedia or probably award shows held in US. I bet no one can even prove that beeltles and evils sales are wrong or right.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

ANYBODY can request to have a Guinness world record, but they have to be able to verify the facts - this is usually done by a Guinness rep.
In this case, Guinness never received any data to back up MJ's claim that Thriller had sold 104 million copies and they admitted this in their book. I bet you anything that the record was removed from the next issue.

Does anybody here have the latest copy to verify this?? If not, I'll check when I next go to WHSmith.

It was almost certainly MJ's people who set up the WMA fiasco and brought the Guinness representative along for authenticity. The WMA and Guinness were just using the information supplied by MJ's people, which was never proven.
WMA just wanted Mike to make his first public appearance in the UK on their awards show and so gave him an award without checking the data. After all, they probably didn't think they needed to - Mike had after all already been 'awarded' by Guinness.
Also, WMA have been known for incorrectly giving awards before, as has been documented on chart statistic websites. They are good, but not always correct (though usually are).


Sales for Elvis and Beatles are definitely inflated and all charts experts will admit that. When they were around, sales data was largely estimated and very incomplete in comparison to today. So I can say with 100% certainty that Elvis and Beatles sales data is wrong, just as Mike's sales data is wrong.

Record companies often inflate sales and MJ is no exception.
 
bobmoo79 said:
You are wrong.

ANYBODY can request to have a Guinness world record, but they have to be able to verify the facts - this is usually done by a Guinness rep.
In this case, Guinness never received any data to back up MJ's claim that Thriller had sold 104 million copies and they admitted this in their book. I bet you anything that the record was removed from the next issue.
Does anybody here have the latest copy to verify this?? If not, I'll check when I next go to WHSmith.
Click to expand...
It is strange that Guinness would do that in the 21 century! Why they would add him and award him for those achievements in a world ceremony and then claim that they didn’t verify the facts?! How often that happen at Guinness?

bobmoo79 said:
It was almost certainly MJ's people who set up the WMA fiasco and brought the Guinness representative along for authenticity. The WMA and Guinness were just using the information supplied by MJ's people, which was never proven.
WMA just wanted Mike to make his first public appearance in the UK on their awards show and so gave him an award without checking the data. After all, they probably didn't think they needed to - Mike had after all already been 'awarded' by Guinness.
Also, WMA have been known for incorrectly giving awards before, as has been documented on chart statistic websites. They are good, but not always correct (though usually are).
Click to expand...
We don’t know that for sure unless you have a reliable source to prove that was just a setup and intentional, I won’t speculate unless WMA would release a statement and I know they won’t.

bobmoo79 said:
Sales for Elvis and Beatles are definitely inflated and all charts experts will admit that. When they were around, sales data was largely estimated and very incomplete in comparison to today. So I can say with 100% certainty that Elvis and Beatles sales data is wrong..
Click to expand...
I agree
 
Yeah Guinness never has been able to prove that 104 million number. Sony itself said the album pushed 70 million and that the singles from it pushed an additional 30 million (according to their MJ bio). So who knows?
 
The main difference in considering album sales among The Beatles, Elvis and Michael is that Michaels album sale can be supported by many official sources and regular chart performances around the globe, on the contrary ... the Beatles and Elvis albums were from/in the 60s and 70s mostly estimated, including the sale in Eastern Europe (up to vs. after 1989), Asia...!!!
 
We can agree one another that Michael has sold more records (especially albums) than Elvis, thats for sure!!!

BUT, why media has always been referring to Elvis as the best seller (with that a billion number???) if all music experts DO know that its nonsense???

Why Michael has alwayd been underestimated in sale of records if the experts do know its not true?

Who can change that? Is it possible to report officially that Elvis sold markedly less records than Michael Jackson?

Is the agenda of some bosses from media and "conspirators" acceptable? ... definitely not..., but ... somebody should change that...
 
LOL! I don't think underestimating Elvis and The Beatles influence in other parts of the world has anything to do with a "lack of knowledge about musical history" :lol:

it's got to do with first hand info and experience ;)
 
indranee said:
LOL! I don't think underestimating Elvis and The Beatles influence in other parts of the world has anything to do with a "lack of knowledge about musical history" :lol:

it's got to do with first hand info and experience ;)
Click to expand...
Hmm, seems to me that getting it right is the result of info and experience. The word underestimating by itself implies getting it wrong.;)

But I'm not arguing that Elvis or the Beatles sold more or even as many records than MJ - only that when it comes to record sales the impact of all three during their heyday was comparable in terms of how they dominated the market and the charts. Comparing sales figures of artists from different eras only tells us part of the story though. In the unlikely event that there for example would be a "next Elvis or Michael" he will probably sell a lot less records than those two simply because people don't buy as many records anymore even though his impact might be the same. And just as the 2000's are a different marketplace with different circumstances than the 1980's, the same goes when comparing the 1980's with the 1950's or the 1950's with the 1930's.
 
As far as I see it. Including albums plus singles.

1. The Beatles- 450-490 million records

2. MJ- 335 million BEFORE he died, and around 350 now.

3. Elvis- 300-330 million

BUT

Lets say that both Elvis and the beatles outsold MJ.

Michael Jackson has the best selling album of all time. Is there even another album that came close to selling 70 million? He released way more albums than Michael, but why don't they have an album that has sold anywhere in the vicinity of Thriller. So what if Elvis or The Beatles sold more records. If you took an average of both artists complete catalog, MJ's would be higher. Here is a good explanation for the validity behind this:
Example: Many people consider Michael Jordan to be the best player in basketball, but did you know Jordan isn't even the NBA's all time leading scorer. That would belong to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Abdul Jabbar scoring 38387 while Jordan having 32292. However, Kareem played in more games than Jordan (similar to Elvis and the beatles having more albums than MJ). Jordan played in 1072 games while Abdul-Jabbar played in 1560. Abdul-Jabbar averaged 24.6 points per game, while Jordan averaged 30.1 over the span of their careers. Both were great players, but many consider Michael Jordan the best to play the game.
In correlation, you could argue that Elvis and the Beatles are better because he has sold more records. However, you could also argue that Michael Jackson is better because he has the best selling album of all time, and averages a better selling rate per album than Elvis or the Beatles.
 
KB50MJ said:
As far as I see it. Including albums plus singles.

1. The Beatles- 450-490 million records

2. MJ- 335 million BEFORE he died, and around 350 now.

3. Elvis- 300-330 million

BUT

Lets say that both Elvis and the beatles outsold MJ.

Michael Jackson has the best selling album of all time. Is there even another album that came close to selling 70 million? He released way more albums than Michael, but why don't they have an album that has sold anywhere in the vicinity of Thriller. So what if Elvis or The Beatles sold more records. If you took an average of both artists complete catalog, MJ's would be higher. Here is a good explanation for the validity behind this:
Example: Many people consider Michael Jordan to be the best player in basketball, but did you know Jordan isn't even the NBA's all time leading scorer. That would belong to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Abdul Jabbar scoring 38387 while Jordan having 32292. However, Kareem played in more games than Jordan (similar to Elvis and the beatles having more albums than MJ). Jordan played in 1072 games while Abdul-Jabbar played in 1560. Abdul-Jabbar averaged 24.6 points per game, while Jordan averaged 30.1 over the span of their careers. Both were great players, but many consider Michael Jordan the best to play the game.
In correlation, you could argue that Elvis and the Beatles are better because he has sold more records. However, you could also argue that Michael Jackson is better because he has the best selling album of all time, and averages a better selling rate per album than Elvis or the Beatles.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with you. It's not about your total but your effect.
 
Despite of these huge numbers, its still... low number... 11.5 mill., I mean..., there was many more fans than those who bought MJs albums after his death, where are they? the fans of the 80s???

I would expect substantially higher numbers!!!
 
11.5 million people purchased MJ albums since his death. That does not include singles, digital downloads, ringtones, or DVD sales. If these were included, the number would be over 30 million.
 
The numbers speaks for them self. MJ is DA KING!
 
ive been reading up on how much mj sold since his death (this includes digital downloads and singles) and it was (3.8 albums and 7.6 singles) IN AMERICA ALONE (from death to aug 5th).

link

http://www.billboard.com/column/dai...ve-grohl-supergroup-kristina-1004000617.story


Is there a way to get an accurate number for MJ's current total sales (including digital and singles)..? because if he sold album 12 million in america ALONE since his death..


I can only imagine the worldwide numbers are...


someone please help me.
 
Updated the numbers...Jackson has sold over 12 million albums this summer already around the world, shifting another 875,000 this week alone.
 
smooth_criminal05 said:
11.5 million people purchased MJ albums since his death. That does not include singles, digital downloads, ringtones, or DVD sales. If these were included, the number would be over 30 million.
Click to expand...

I am really looking forward to the end of the year...:clapping:

Although, the Beatles are going to release re-editions of their albums... so... how many records will they sell...? :evil::fortuneteller::doh:
 
Calotte12 said:
The Beatles will not sell as much as jackson... maybe they will sell 1-2 millions around the world
Click to expand...

Oh honey...:doh:

there will be released their most known albums..., so I expect at least 5 mill. of each, and more than (at least) 30 mill. worldwide... :timer::cry:
 
Moonwalker.Fan said:
Oh honey...:doh:

there will be released their most known albums..., so I expect at least 5 mill. of each, and more than (at least) 30 mill. worldwide... :timer::cry:
Click to expand...

When The Beatles re-release some of their albums, I imagine they will sell a combined total of 4-5 million. They will not sell another 5 million copies each, when some of the albums have never even sold that in the first place. If however the catalogue becomes available on I-tunes then expect huge digital downloads. I still don't think The Beatles has any chance of outselling MJ this year though don't worry.
 
Calotte12 said:
Are you kidding me ?
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking:p
Those beatles albums will never cross the 30 million together. They maybe sell max. 5 million albums. That's enough for them:lol:
Michael will definately end this year around the 30 million.
With the release of this is it, the album sales will make another turning point. It will boost the sales.
 
The Essential Michael Jackson is STILL Number 1 in Australia, With Number Ones not that far away.
 
Just want to bring this to your attention. I just found this thread in the 'Enough is Enough' section.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74122

Apparently an MJ hater on wikipedia has gone in and changed his numbers, putting him FOURTH in RECORD SALES after The Beatles, Elvis and ABBA.


The Beatles United Kingdom 1960–1970 Rock / Pop rock 1 billion
Elvis Presley United States 1953–1977 Rock and Roll / Pop 1 billion
ABBA Sweden 1972–1982 Pop / Disco 370 million
Michael Jackson United States 1964–2009 Pop / R&B / Rock 350 million

The word is that the 'author' of the article is an MJ hater and has locked the article so that no one can change it. There is a forum where people have gone in and tried to get the author to change the numbers.

Anyways, I know that we can't take statistics at Wikipedia seriously. But a lot of people who don't know any better do take wikipedia articles as true. It's just sad that Michael is not getting acknowledged for his accomplishments.

Anyways, are we considering RECORDS as the same as ALBUMS? I know that we've differentiated UNITS vs. ALBUMS here.

The list also says that the Jackson 5 have sold 100+ million records.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._music_artists

HERE IS THE TALK PAGE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Li..._music_artists
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top