Forum
You might pass Queen and even if you don't it's ok. In 2017, Queen and the Rolling Stones are equal, with a difference of 1 million EAS. Bohemian Rhapsody worked wonders, but the Stones were relegated from the start.
Agree Marco...there are a number of older acts worth evaluating, albeit they will take quite a bit of work as many had long careers. As well as Bing I would think Louis Armstrong, Dean Martin, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Glenn Miller, Nat King Cole...the list could go on of course but these were quite substantial artists of their era.
When will Michael Jackson's sales be updated? You guys are still using outdated numbers for his albums from the mid 2000s.
Regarding the list, it is probably not planned right now. An update would make little sense at the moment, as the biopic as a potential booster has not yet been released yet. Perhaps at the earliest a year after the theatrical launch of Michael (2025), it would be interesting to determine the associated increase in sales.
It just seems fishy when The Beatles can somehow go up by 100 Million plus for their albums within a 5 year timeframe in the streaming age, but Jackson's sales remain lower than what was already reported decades ago. We have reliable media sources for all of his studio albums up to his death, with a additional 50 million pure copies of his solo albums sold within a timeframe of June 2009 - December 2013 alone <a href=" removed link " target="_blank" rel="noopener">Billboard (11/8/2013). Not accounting for album equivalent sales which are around <a href=" removed link " target="_blank" rel="noopener">5 million per year, and yet all of the albums remain cited lower. These numbers can't come from the media and they can't come from the record company since they both cite the same and also different figures than what Chartmasters has. Are these largely just independently estimated by editors based on the charts?
Good question. Thriller has been 70 million sales for over twenty years now, hasn't it?
