I read on the Metallica site that it was the seventh biggest music act ever. It didn’t provide any other details (eg if its in US, in world, in CD sales, gross earnings or whatever) so I was wondering, does anybody know (or know of a site) that has these statistics?
I’m guessing the Beatles, Elvis, Micheal Jackson would be up there as well. None of the searches I did on google found anything remotely related.
How are they defining biggest? Or act? Number of musicians? Number of fans? Sales? Drugs taken? Gross sales?
I’d probably go with Rush. Touring and recording for 25+ years now. Most of the acts you named either had very short careers or take much time off between activity. That’s going to bring your average down.
You need a band that releases recordings on a regular and frequent basis while touring large venue facilities with success for a long time. That would get you there.
Hmm…except for the ‘frequent recordings’ thing I’d say the Rolling Stones and U2 are up there as well.
Well, bear in mind that the population is much larger today than it was when Elvis was in his heyday, and people generally have more disposable income than they used to. So, even acts that were HUGE in the 40s, 50s and early 60s generally don’t have record sales that compare to those of more modern acts. A record that was #1 on the Billboard charts for a month in 1956 probably sold far fewer copies than a record that “only” made it to #10 in 1976.
So, it’s not necessarily surprising to learn that, say, the first LP by Boston sold WAY more copies than any album by Bing Crosby or or Frank Sinatra. Boston wasn’t necessarily as beloved in the 70s ans Bing and Frank were in the 40s, but they had the good fortune to make their first album at a time when there were a lot more people ready to spend money for albums.
The best-selling album of all time is “The Eagles’ Greatest Hits”- and one of the reasons it’s sold so well is that so many people have bought it in multiple formats! People who liked the Eagles in the 70s bought it on vinyl or 8-track, many later bought it on cassette (to play in their cars), and many eventually bought it on CD.
So, you see, longevity pays! “Frampton Comes Alive” may have sold 8 million copies when it came out, but nobody’s bought a copy since 1977! But an album like “Led Zeppelin IV” or Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” continues to sell steadily, year after year.
The following link will tell you the best selling albums of all time:
As you can see, the Beatles, the Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Pink Floyd, Garth Brooks, Whitney Houston and the Backstreet Boys all have multiple albums in the Top 25. One of those acts is probably the top selling recording act of all time. But since Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd had VERY few hit singles to go with their smash albums, and Garth Brooks’ hits have been confined to the country charts, and the Backstreet Boys weren’t popular for very long, I’d say we can exclude them.
I’d be inclined to pick the Beatles, just because they had so many gold and platinum singles, in addition to all the albums they’ve sold.
If we are talking money, then the act/person occupying the top slot is Sir Paul McCartney, with a net worth of around $1,000,000,000. A good bit of that comes from The Beatles stuff but he also owns the rights to some impressive song catalogs, which means he doesn’t have to do anything and the money rolls on in.
The Glenn Miller Orchestra has been touring for more than 60 years. Louis Armstrong recorded for more than 40 years (and performed even longer). I don’t think longevity is necessarily a good criterion.
Our great Unca Cecil noted once that in terms of #1 records, Elvis was more successful than the Beatles. In terms of Top 10 records at a single time, both the Beatles and the Bee Gees were more successful. Even terms like numbers of units sold or gross dollars can be defined more than one way.
This is too likely to turn into a bar bet without a better definition of the term “successful.”
True enough. Though I don’t think Glenn Miller ever sold 25,000 seats at $30 a head in his life.
I maintain that the proper definition of ‘successful’ is going to require that the performer(s) produce many many salable records and tour a great deal.
Rush isn’t anywhere close to the top of the list. Not even in the ballpark.
You want to talk concert draw, you’ll have to talk about groups like the Grateful Dead, or U2, or Van Halen, The Eagles, The Who, and the Rolling Stones.
In terms of album sales, they are even farther behind. Not one of their albums has cracked the top 50.
I believe The Beatles #1 is the best selling CD of all time. It beat out The Eagles Greatest Hits some time last year.
Actually, Rush is #4 in Gold and Platinum albums for a band. Right behind KISS at #3 (uh-huh…you heard me right)
w/ the 'Stones at #2 and (drum roll)…no surprise
and coming in at #1 The Beatles
individuals are something else:
The King is #1 by far…
I was a little surprised to find out that Willie Nelson had more gold/platinum albums in the '80’s than anyone…individuals or bands.
P.S. those are songs he did. It doesn’t include the multitudes that he wrote for other artists.
cite: http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/faq.html
That’s a cool link, astorian. Lots of info in there.
Sure, Rush has a lot of gold and platinum albums. But that’s because they’ve made a lot of albums.
The Eagles made relatively few records, but those few albums sold far, far better than any individual Rush record. The biggest Rush album, Moving Pictures, “only” sold 4 million copies, and they’ve only made three albums that hit platinum. On the other hand, The Eagles Greatest Hits has sold 27 million copies, Greatest Hits Vol 2 sold 10 million, Hotel California 15 million … and that’s just the ones in the all-time top 100. I think the Eagles have the edge in terms of total units sold by a comfortable margin.
(As an aside, 25 years on the road is nothing when it comes to longetivity. Duke Ellington–and I’m talking about the man, not the band–toured almost continously for 45 years. Same for Count Basie.)
Doh, if I would have read just a little further before posting, I would have found the numbers I was looking for …
The Eagles have sold some 83 million units, Rush 22 million.
What’s the deal with Rush? I haven’t heard a single one of their songs and they’re being nominated as ‘most successful musical act of all time?’
I think I’m shocked.
Rush is a band formed in the early 1970s that’s been making records fairly steadily (and touring so) since that time. They recently took several years off following the death of one of the members entire family (as good an excuse as I’ve heard.
I don’t want this to become a Rush debate because I’m enjoying it as it is. But I do think that pointing to bands that have sold many records but not toured much loses a part of the equation. Also, I think we’d have to look at those bands who toured but didn’t play many shows. What’s better? To sell 50,000 seats to 25 shows or 25,000 seats to 100 shows?
This is, as mentioned, probably an undefinable argument but it’s bound to be a fun one.
I remember an edition of The Guiness Book of World records which lists ABBA as the most successful band of all time.
Yet another reason we’d better come up with a damn good definition, right folks?
Yet greater reason to nail down that definition, right folks?
First off let me say, I am an Eagles fan, never did like RUSH, still don’t. I respect their music and their success. But, in no way would I claim they were the best.
On the other hand,
I love the Eagles and have much of their music. As mentioned before, I have their music in several mediums, from albums and cassettes to cd’s. Another band w/ similar appeal to me is Boston. I’ve bought numerous copies of their music simply because they wore out. KISS, I’ve always liked them, from the start.
NOW on to the OP!
I think most will agree we need a definition of success that is acceptable to majority here.
Lets do it then, I propose we take several categories and record their frequency and/or status. “The music act”, that has the best score wins. Does that sound about right? This is just off the top of my head so please feel free to join in.
“Music act” is another variable that we should define. Does this include all listings? Groups, individual, what about ind. that was in numerous groups and solo as well?
For now, let’s be all inclusive, everything counts. We’ll make adjustments as need be.
SUCCESS= most money/relatively speaking (ie. '50s vs '90s)
= most copies sold
= most gold record/album sales
= longevity (does their music stand the test of time)
= awards
= plus any change or additions y’all have
Let’s test it!
my guess is will be ELVIS #1
and (I love Beatles) but 'Stones will be #2
then again if Paul McCartney gets full credit…hmm we’ll see.
Allright scientists, let’s do it.
First off let me say, I am an Eagles fan, never did like RUSH, still don’t. I respect their music and their success. But, in no way would I claim they were the best.
On the other hand,
I love the Eagles and have much of their music. As mentioned before, I have their music in several mediums, from albums and cassettes to cd’s. Another band w/ similar appeal to me is Boston. I’ve bought numerous copies of their music simply because they wore out. KISS, I’ve always liked them, from the start.
NOW on to the OP!
I think most will agree we need a definition of success that is acceptable to majority here.
Lets do it then, I propose we take several categories and record their frequency and/or status. “The music act”, that has the best score wins. Does that sound about right? This is just off the top of my head so please feel free to join in.
“Music act” is another variable that we should define. Does this include all listings? Groups, individual, what about ind. that was in numerous groups and solo as well?
For now, let’s be all inclusive, everything counts. We’ll make adjustments as need be.
SUCCESS= most money/relatively speaking (ie. '50s vs '90s)
= most copies sold
= most gold record/album sales
= longevity (does their music stand the test of time)
= awards
= plus any change or additions y’all have
Let’s test it!
my guess will be ELVIS #1
and (I love Beatles) but 'Stones will be #2
then again if Paul McCartney gets full credit…hmm we’ll see.
Allright scientists, let’s do it.
The Who (in one version or another) must certainly rate as one of the top acts. Certainly, Pete Townshend must be considered as one of the most sucessfull composers in rock…not to mention the fame TOMMY brought him on Broadway.
There is a problem with the term “album sales”. I remember reading a few years ago that the Record Industry was changing their criteria of what is considered an “Album sold”. Apparently they changed it from actual # of units bought from consumers to number of units ordered from the record stores.
As you can see this causes a problem to know how many were actually sold. It reminds me of how every year there is a new record in the movie industry. No kidding! You just raised the prices again you morons!
Yes, I will look for a cite.