I would assume that the Rolling Stones were the most successful music act in history. They have sold millions of albums, and have been touring for decades, and still pack stadiums all over the place. To do so for nearly 40 years would make me think that they were the most successful music act in history. Elvis and the Beatles may have sold a lot of records, but they lacked the Stones’ longevity. While the Glen Miller Orchestra and Duke Ellington may have been around for a long time, I don’t know if they were making (adjusted by time differences) as much money for performances as the Stones.
The Stones are an interesting case in that their recent records are just excuses to tour. They might get a very small bump for a few weeks with whatever song on the new record is the ‘lead single’ and they’ll play that song on tour. But the rest of the record is ignored.
In effect, I’m asking whether there should be a ‘resting on their laurels’ penalty to the equation.
Well after looking at the neosoul site, I’m guessing that Metallica probably did some exaggerating or picked some obscure statistic.
I think the best way to determine the biggest selling acts would be their CD/cassette/LP/memerobilia/concert sales etc relative to the total for that time period. Somewhat like GDP/capita. I think going by earnings would skew results to present acts. Although you could argue the converse because record companies are taking a greater proportion of the profits nowadays.
The one musical act that has made the most money is ** Phantom of the Opera **. I think it’s up to around a billion dollars now. At one point, it was making $10,000 a day.
The Original London cast is the greatest selling cast recording of all time.
People forget musical theatre when they talk about successful music acts.
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? I don’t care how you define it or what warped alternative reality you wanna’ believe:
Elvis will always be number one.
Don’t try to confuse me with facts. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!
Elvis performed for nearly 30 years, music and television. He was #1 for most of his duration. He still sells millions of “copies” annually (50 years after he began) that’s what I’d call longevity. The fact that he died doesn’t diminish his sucess.
His $$ relatively speaking surpasses any performer in any media.
(all $$ from beginning to present, all income from all sources)
(all $$ converted to present $$ values)
a quick cite:
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/elvis.htm
I think by any standard Elvis is KING
That depends on what music chart(s) you include.
The standard for the US recording industry for the last 40 odd years has been Billboard magazine’s Hot 100 Singles chart.
On that chart, Elvis had 17 #1 songs.
The Beatles had 20 #1 songs on that chart.
So, much as I hate to say it, Unca Cecil is /John McLaughlin/
WRONG!
/JMC/