Category: Classic Rock

Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl, LP)

Clearly they didn't have more hits and more top albums across the world, there are countries other than the USA you know. And they ARE listed as the 21st artist of the Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl. All the other major artists have which is a big advantage when they get to see you live. That's why politicians campaign when they're running. In alot of comparisons they forget to mention the fact that Elvis would have sold even more reoords. All my respects for him but, the colonel made some mistakes with him.

Performers of non-English language recordings have two shows of succeeding. Where are the top performers from China who have sold millions of records over the past decade or two. I think this whole project is poIntless. She certainly has never generated anywhere near the revenue of any of those five. During the 20th century the total music revenue generated in China was less than that in Taiwan, Greece or Belgium.

You are correct in suggesting that people will make up their own minds, but the suggestion that the scoring system here is either arbitrary or deliberately biased is wrong.

Thank you for this wonderful page of research. And yes, even though there area number of crazy Michael Jackson fans who really do believe what they are saying, the facts speak loud and proud.

Thank you - a great effort. You've done a great job, but I see more of the Pop music s and s. Would be awesome to see a breakdown of those charts as well.

For the person that mention about the Platters. They really didn't release hit singles until late But I appreciate the work you gave done. I really feel Louis Jordan is heavily overlooked, and he was one of the first musicians to produce and star in his own movies during his heyday.

He invented "Rock and Roll ," as they call it. There is a page dedicated to Louis Jordan just enter his name in the search box at the top right of this page. We don't include any "genre" charts, doing so would bias the results and also it is impossible to compare them. That way madness lies. Our view is that music "genres" are not a real thing. During the same week Al Dexter's "So Long Pal" was the number 1 Country song, but it didn't even make it into the overall chart.

For at least that week position on the "Country Charts" is not worth noting. Did you know that the Australian band The Seekers sold far more albums than the Rolling Stones during the 60s and also outsold the beatles for 2 years in a row in nad In Australia presumably. He is the greatest when it comes to music.

Despite the lack of any evidence to support your claims your opinion has been noted. Other opinions are also available.

I would like to point out that Thriller sold 25 million albums worldwide inthe 80's. That didn't make the best selling artist of that decade. Thriller was one album of 3,MJ had out in the 80s.

Neither of the other albums were close to being as big as Thriller, only Bad was a 1 album. Neither are the top selling artist. I don't know why people are so surprised that Jackson is not the top artist on the charts in the 80's.

He wasn't the top charting artist in the US. Prince was with weeks in the Billboard Hot charts, Hall and Oates were second with s, as was Billy Joel who was 3rd, Madonna was 4th withJackson was 5th with Billy Joel was the top selling artist selling over 35 million albums.

Jackson sold 32 million in the US in the 80s. He was Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl up by the rest of the world and in Asia where he took of in the 90s. Also, it is true that the RIAA started certifying double albums as 2 single units in Albums form the vinyl era with over 70 minutes of music were counted as 2 units. When Donna Summer's Casablanca catolog was transferred to disc in 93, the album Live and More would have also qualified to be certified twice, but it could not be fit on one disc at the time, so Mac Arthur Park Suite was included on the Donna Summer Dance Collection.

Dropping Live and More to below 70 minutes. Her Casablanca catalog remains grossly under certified because of circumstance as does the rest of her catalog as well.

Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey Whitney Houston too if she's lurkinganywhere should be censored from this list for their spiritless, Hallmark-inspired crimes against creativity. The fact that their fans are insane doesn't help their cause either. Speaking of insipid music, where's Nana Mouskouri? I would like to say thank you for this chart.

It's a competent and fair system that you have developed in showing the success of each artist. I know there are a lot of fans that get upset with your chart.

But this is for theWhitney Houston fanssold 15 million albums in the US in the 80's - she had one gold single which her record company applied for platinum status in when the switch took place. That is less than Donna Summer who sold 20 million plus albums and 15 singles in the late 70's in the US.

She is under certified by the RIAA - because they didn't start multi-platinum certification until Thus there being no impetus for the label to have her certifications updated. The double platinum certification that Bad Girls and GHOTR have are due to a format change albums that contain more than minutes of music are counted as two units.

That is 10 million albums in a year and half, not to mention 2 platinum singles Hot Stuff 2. Gold singles were a million - Platinum two million until in the US.

Donna is not even where she could be on this list in the 70's, because of being under certified At least Houston is properly certified. MJ wrote his own music. And coproduced or fully produced all his albums hewrote the arrangements and composed every more on all his music.

He wasn't just a pop star. He was very talented on stage and in the studio. He could play instruments too. Prince was a master musician and performer but I feel that he wasn't number one He had more material but none of his music charter as long as Michael's. Michael literally was named artist of the decade by the President. None of these things make any difference. If we were listing the most influential artists, our favourite artists or the most publicity seeking ones then these things might have influence.

But this site lists the artists with the most chart hits. By that measure he was the fourth artist of the s. How can KING of pop be in 4ths place in the 80s! He single handed destroy the 80s music industry. Someone asked is anything after considered music. Well look who wasBritain's biggest selling artist that year well one of them Gary Numan. Enough said.

In reading the conversations with many people who seem to lack a third grade skill of reading your site before posting opinions or subjective, baseless commentary, you maintain a tact and veer away from personsal atracks for the most part unless their ignorance is really begging to be pointed out.

I think my only suggestion I might give to help is, maybe and forgive me if I missed it somewhere on your sitetake artist's song data and give a higher weight so songs that stayed higher on charts longer the normalize the album data because I feel fairly confident that there is a direct significant correlation between song success and album sucess.

I just think that sucess of an album suspicious opinion ahead due to one song example, Pornograffitti by the band Extreme by people looking for the song, "More Than Words" might be artificially boosting some artists on your scale where it might not be truly replective or their sucess.

Undoubtedly, certain artist's, like Madonna, I would see no reason for album data to skew results like an outlier. Maybe weight the time of sucess of sucessful songs on the album as pre-scale to the album weight. As with all data outliers will skew results in some area, but you can't just ignore artist's in you case. I truly hope you don't take my suggestions in a nefative light. Your team undertook a huge project and have you results well laid out and explained in detail. Again, all my appreciation for all you hard work.

Thank you for yourinvestment of time to make short cutter like myself to have a great place to trust the facts of what I read. Thank you for the suggestion. It is a topic that we have dicussed between us a few times, unfortunately the conclusion we have come to is that putting extra weight on long runs near the top won't work for this data. The reason is that many of the source charts don't have enough detail available.

This is especially true for the earlier charts and those from the less well represented countries. In that case we add up the success calculated daily to estimate the overall success of songs, albums and artists.

That site only deals with music since 1 Janbecause we have fairly complete data after that date. The issue of "other factors" having significant impacts on song and album sales has always been with us, from Bing Crosby's s radio shows to the boost in sales for "Purple Rain" in May that followed Prince's death.

We naively believe and indeed hope that these things tend to even each other out. Hendrix may parallel Prince on guitar Stevie Wonder may parallel Prince onpiano and keyboards Larry Graham may parallel Prince on Bass Dave Grohl may parallel Prince on drums Michael Jackson may parallel Prince on singing and dancing Elvis Presley should be the number one artist because he sold as many albumsor nearly as many albums as the Beatles and he was ju because he sold as many albums or nearly as many albums has the Beatles and he was a solo artist.

There were four Beatles so technically this personall there were four Beatles. So technically Elvis sold 4x as many copies for each of the band members in the Beatles. Now Prince is gone too RIP. I was searching for the most popular artists for every decade, and this brought me to your list. I respect your approach of course, and futhermore it has brought an interesting pov.

Statistically the best approach would be the following, by using and combining the following parameters:. List 7 List of most viewed youtube videos. Of course, there has to be a method to recalculate it in regards to eras where youtube was know.

So that elvis, beatles etc are being included fairly. The results of all these list should be combined, and the artists that has the highest avrage positions on all these lists are the BEST! I don't know who would top the lists, but if I would have to guess, it would be Michael Jackson. The most sold copies is an artifact of the evolution of the music business. Had CDs been around when Bing Crosby was active the order would be different.

So that doesn't work. Michael Jackson comes below on that list. Interestingly the highest artist with more than 3 albums in that list is Madonna. Most won awards just depends on what awards you count. And is unfair to early artists from before there were many awards. Most earned inflation adjustedhow would you measure such a thing?

Everybody lies. Dancing ability? Are we talking about musicians? Best writer. Ah that has a possible way to measure. Maybe look at how many cover versions of their songs have become hits for others. That I would be interested to see. Most Tabloid? I personally don't care, the fact that Garry Glitter has a lot of Tabloid coverage certainly doesn't make him a better musician or make his music "better". Now this is, of course, just my opinion.

I would be interested to see any analysis you do along these lines. Feel free to use the data we provide to help. Seems strange that the Platters didn't make the list. Look on the s page. They are artist 18 of the decade and artist 2 of and artist of the whole site. I'm gonna suggest that you should make a different strategy for artistsuccess. Prince in the 80s made an album nearly every year compared to Jackson. Jackson made 3 not counting "victory " because he barely took part. So clearly Prince will be higher because he made way more songs and albums.

That doesn't mean he is more successful it means he had way more exposure opportunities yet his best album doesn't compare to jacksons. Your status system is flawed. What you should of done is total number of hits divided by albums or songs as a term for value of weight. What you suggest would focus on the most high scoring albums or songs, we already have a listing for that. If we measure an artist's average album success, as you suggest, then the top 10 of all time looks like:.

If you want to find a measure which forces Michael Jackson to the top then this isn't it. Could expand or explain on Elvis Presley's hits or gold records.

They certainly have more voice range than Michael ever did to my mind! Your criteria is flawed. I think you systematically created a formula to place Michael Jackson low on your list. He only released two albums in the 80s and due to a technicality he wouldn't have the opportunity to chart as well as Madonna who released albums as frequently as she visited the toilet.

Through all your endeavours and failings to make an accurate criteria here are a few other questions I pose. Stevie Wonder had three of the best records ever released in history in the 70s.

All three were critically acclaimed and influenced the very artists you've listed Elton John said Songs In The Key Of Life was the greatest record of all timeyet Stevie Wonder misses your list completely.

I assume chart success is simply limited to western world countries that monitor their chart, which leads to a misleading title 'Most successful artists of the US in each decade' would be accurate. Your title is misleading, so your research and findings are amateur. If your research doesn't include every country of the world, it should be clearly stated. Chart success as the only means to measure a musicians success is incorrectly labelled.

Success is also measured through endorsement deals, awards of recognition, contract signings, world tours, television ratings, etc. For example, statistics that are readily available and work WITH your theory of 'no opinion - facts' would say Michael Jackson signed the biggest endorsement deal of the 80s with Pepsi. Michael Jackson won more awards than any artist in the history of music, including artist of the year and decade of every awards show in the world including the grammys, AMAs, world music awards, etc.

Michael Jackson signed the biggest recording contract of all time in the 80s with Sony. Michael Jackson's performance at Motowns 25th anniversary had over 50 million viewers. Quite simply, your criteria is flawed and you cannot generate a 'comeback' todisprove my claims because I am stated facts.

Your criteria is one dimensional and lacks common sense. The thought that the scoring system was especially designed to put down Michael Jackson is If we wanted to reduce a single artist's impact that would be easy, but why would we go to all the effort of creating such a comprehensive listing with data from for example if our goal was so stupid?

If you had you would know that we have put a lot of effort into getting as good a "world view" as possible. We certainly cannot be accused of overly focusing on the US. Even if that extra data was available it wouldn't contribute to a "world view". Other measures: Your suggestions rather illustrate the point, first of all there are no reliable sources for any of the measures you mention, just look at how Jackson's fans lie about the sizes of world tours etc, secondly even if there were such "facts" available the selection of which to include and what weight to give them would provide ample opportunity for promoting favoured acts or eras.

Your statement that "Michael Jackson won more awards than any artist in the history of music" is exactly the type of subjective unverifiable thing we try to avoid. We can't see any reasonable way to compare or contrast these two "facts". The fact is that, as far as we can see, consolidating chart input is the least bad way to measure the success of musical acts. If you can think of a better one set up your own web site.

Once you've done that come back and tell us about it, until you've acually put some work in your opinions are pretty much worthless.

The way we gather data is very good for periods longer than about 10 years ago. We don't trust our results after about so any results for the current decade are, at best, dubious.

I'm pretty sure janet was the second most succesful artist of Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl 90's andmichael was the N. They don't even make it to the top 50 of the 70s. You can see why on their artist page, first while they had success in the USA they didn't do well elsewhere, secondly their period of greatest success straddled the 60s and 70s. Honestly pretty surprised to see no Goodman for the 30s. I trust your system,but I gotta say, I found that very interesting.

Also, that Al Jolson came in second behind Paul Whiteman. Very cool chart here. Definitely not surprised to see Bing in first place for 2 decades, though. That man absolutely dominated the airwaves. If you look at the s page you will find Benny Goodman at number 7 for the s. Given that he had few hits that feels about right to us.

He was the top act of by our numbers. You know I'm looking at the older comments saying that Mariah Carey should be the number 1 artist of the 90's but I'm looking at the table above and Mariah is number 1. So did something change, was there a mistake? Like no joke, I mean great for her she is very talented. There was no mistake, the thing is that the order of these lists is determined by the data. The main thing that has changed is that the way the numbers are combined has been refined.

When did you born? Surprised not to see her listed at all, particularly in the 70's. Didn't she rank at all? She had the 35th song of the s and is artist of all time in v2. Not enough hit albums basically. Remember that albums contribute twice what songs do. Of course you can download the CSV file and try some alternative way to calculate. Michael jackson is the most successful of all time in 80's and 90's ,Everyone around the world knows who he is and how much talent he hadhe also is the most famous person in the world that ever live.

This is not a vote, here we deal with facts not opinions, Michael Jackson had fewer hit songs and albums than the artists listed higher. By that definition he was not "the most successful of all time in 80's". What about Cher? She had hits music almost every decade from the sixties on. Since when did you change her rank?

I've read some old comments and the argueswere about why Madonna was no. Did you change your calculation or something :-? We did change the calculation. The version numbers indicate the scoring Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl as well as fixes in the data.

The 2. X scoring switched the order. To be honest for the s whether Madonna or Mariah are number one in the s depends on the fine details of the calculation, in reality they are close enough to each other that the difference isn't significant. We can say that the two of them are well ahead of the rest of the s acts.

What about Phil Collins? Tallying his work from Genesis and his solo career,he has more hits and chart time than anyone from the 80s. I see you guys have received a lot of hateful comments, and it saddens me to see people unable to look past their preconceived notions of who should be where. I admire your logarithms and think it's very cool to be able to look at various points in history and see who is on top and when.

Just an idea, but I think it'd be cool to add in. Anyways, don't let anyone stop you! Good luck! Interesting suggestion. Actually since we make all our data available as a CSV file anyone can try various combinations using that data. If anyone finds a good way to apply these ideas we'd be interested to hear from you. Are u kidding me? Usher has the MOST number 1 hit singles and the biggestselling album 'Confessions' within the entire 's decade, and isn't even in the top 5??

Did you read what it says at the top of the page? I think you might find this paper interesting. It's a Cross-evaluation of metrics to estimate the significance of creative works, it applied to films, but it might be interesting the same method applied to the music industry. Hope you find it useful! Interesting, since it relies on "references" from one work to another I can't see how to apply it to music at least at the level of songs and albums we deal with.

I think I know the answer to this question but when will the current decade get its own page? First let me say that you can generate pretty much what that page would have on it from the CSV download file with a little sorting.

As we've said in many other places it takes about 5 years for the results we create to be "reliable" becuase of missing data and issues with consolidation, etc so at the moment we would not trust any of our own results from later than about The site generation software could easily be modified to start generating the s page now, but the results would be so questionable that we would not be happy to put them out there.

Our guess would be that we would wait until we had a few reliable years before turning on the s page something like ? The "correct" way to solve this issue would be for someone to create a companion site that does this type of global consolidation but only for dates after, saythat way it could take advantage of the greater volume of data available and avoid the heavy maths we have to do to fairly combine the s with the s.

If anyone fancies taking on such a challange we'd be happy to discuss. This is just one way of calibrating success. There are many other ways as well. For example, fame, worldwide album sales, world tour grosses or the number of total attendees, success in specific genres etc. If you take any of these into account, the list would be very very different. This is a relatively personal account of mine but Prince never was as famous or popular as Michael although I like prince a lot too worldwide.

First lets deal with your claims, while it is likely that "Thriller" sold more than 40M copies and it is almost certainly the best selling album of all time "Bad" probably sold more like 30M copies and is almost certainly NOT in the top 10 selling albums of all time. The Estelle Show. Band Van Radio with Old Dominion. The Ebro Show. Color Me Country. My 3 Minutes Radio with Carly Pearce.

Weekend Anthems See All. Indie Anthems Apple Music Indie. Music by Mood. Feel Good. Best New Songs See All. City Charts See All. Top Los Angeles Apple Music. Reviews Australian Car. Reviews is an independent publisher of car reviews, recalls, faults, image galleries, brochures, specifications and videos. All rights reserved. Reviews has over 1, extensive reviews of 62, Australian cars I would like to point out that Thriller sold 25 million albums worldwide inthe 80's.

That didn't make the best selling artist of that decade. Thriller was one album of 3,MJ had out in the 80s. Neither of the other albums were close to being as big as Thriller, only Bad was a 1 album. Neither are the top selling artist. I don't know why people are so surprised that Jackson is not the top artist on the charts in the 80's. He wasn't the top charting artist in the US. Prince was with weeks in the Billboard Hot charts, Hall and Oates were second with s, as was Billy Joel who was 3rd, Madonna was 4th withHes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl was 5th with Billy Joel was the top selling artist selling over 35 million albums.

Jackson sold 32 million in the US in the 80s. He was held up by the rest of the world and in Asia where he took of in the 90s. Also, it is true that the RIAA started certifying double albums as 2 single units in Albums form the vinyl era with over 70 minutes of music were counted as 2 units. When Donna Summer's Casablanca catolog was transferred to disc in 93, the album Live and More would have also qualified to be certified twice, but it could not be fit on one disc at the time, so Mac Arthur Park Suite was included on the Donna Summer Dance Collection.

Dropping Live and More to below 70 minutes. Her Casablanca catalog remains grossly under certified because of circumstance as does the rest of her catalog as well. Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey Whitney Houston too if she's lurkinganywhere should be censored from this list for their spiritless, Hallmark-inspired crimes against creativity.

The fact that their fans are insane doesn't help their cause either. Speaking of insipid music, where's Nana Mouskouri? I would like to say thank you for this chart. It's a competent and fair system that you have developed in showing the success of each artist.

I know there are a lot of fans that get upset with your chart. But this is for theWhitney Houston fanssold 15 million albums in the US in the 80's - she had one gold single which her record company applied for platinum status in when the switch took place. That is less than Donna Summer who sold 20 million plus albums and 15 singles in the late 70's in the US.

She is under certified by the RIAA - because they didn't start multi-platinum certification until Thus there being no impetus for the label to have her certifications updated.

The double platinum certification that Bad Girls and GHOTR have are due to a format change albums that contain more than minutes of music are counted as two units. That is 10 million albums in a year and half, not to mention 2 platinum singles Hot Stuff 2.

Gold singles were a million - Platinum two million until in the US. Donna is not even where she could be on this list in the 70's, because of being under certified At least Houston is properly certified. MJ wrote his own music. And coproduced or fully produced all his albums hewrote the arrangements and composed every more on all his music.

He wasn't just a pop star. He was very talented on stage and in the studio. He could play instruments too. Prince was a master musician and performer but I feel that he wasn't number one He had more material but none of his music charter as long as Michael's.

Michael literally was named artist of the decade by the President. None of these things make any difference. If we were listing the most influential artists, our favourite artists or the most publicity seeking ones then these things might have influence.

But this site lists the artists with the most chart hits. By that measure he was the fourth artist of the s. How can KING of pop be in 4ths place in the 80s! He single handed destroy the 80s music industry. Someone asked is anything after considered music. Well look who wasBritain's biggest selling artist that year well one of them Gary Numan. Enough said. In reading the conversations with many people who seem to lack a third grade skill of reading your site before posting opinions or subjective, baseless commentary, you maintain a tact and veer away from personsal atracks for the most part unless their ignorance is really begging to be pointed out.

I think my only suggestion I might give to help is, maybe and forgive me if I missed it somewhere on your sitetake artist's song data and give a higher weight so songs that stayed higher on charts longer the normalize the album data because I feel fairly confident that there is a direct significant correlation between song success and album sucess. I just think that sucess of an album suspicious opinion ahead due to one song example, Pornograffitti by the band Extreme by people looking for the song, "More Than Words" might be artificially boosting some artists on your scale where it might not be truly replective or their sucess.

Undoubtedly, certain artist's, like Madonna, I would see no reason for album data to skew results like an outlier. Maybe weight the time of sucess of sucessful songs on the album as pre-scale to the album weight. As with all data outliers will skew results in some area, but you can't just ignore artist's in you case. I truly hope you don't take my suggestions in a nefative light. Your team undertook a huge project and have you results well laid out and explained in detail.

Again, all my appreciation for all you hard work. Thank you for yourinvestment of time to make short cutter like myself to have a great place to trust the facts of what I read. Thank you for the suggestion. It is a topic that we have dicussed between us a few times, unfortunately the conclusion we have come to is that putting extra weight on long runs near the top won't work for this data. The reason is that many of the source charts don't have enough detail available.

This is especially true for the earlier charts and those from the less well represented countries. In that case we add up the success calculated daily to estimate the overall success of songs, albums and artists. That site only deals with music since 1 Janbecause we have fairly complete data after that date.

The issue of "other factors" having significant impacts on song and album sales has always been with us, from Bing Crosby's s radio shows to the boost in sales for "Purple Rain" in May that followed Prince's death.

We naively believe and indeed hope that these things tend to even each other out. Hendrix may parallel Prince on guitar Stevie Wonder may parallel Prince onpiano and keyboards Larry Graham may parallel Prince on Bass Dave Grohl may parallel Prince on drums Michael Jackson may parallel Prince on singing and dancing Elvis Presley should be the number one artist because he sold as many albumsor nearly as many albums as the Beatles and he was ju because he sold as many albums or nearly as many albums has the Beatles and he was a solo artist.

There were four Beatles so technically this personall there were four Beatles. So technically Elvis sold 4x as many copies for each of the band members in the Beatles.

Now Prince is gone too RIP. I was searching for the most popular artists for every decade, and this brought me to your list. I respect your approach of course, and futhermore it has brought an interesting pov. Statistically the best approach would be the following, by using and combining the following parameters:. List 7 List of most viewed youtube videos.

Of course, there has to be a method to recalculate it in regards to eras where youtube was know. So that elvis, beatles etc are being included fairly. The results of all these list should be combined, and the artists that has the highest avrage positions on all these lists are the BEST! I don't know who would top the lists, but if I would have to guess, it would be Michael Jackson. The most sold copies is an artifact of the evolution of the music business.

Had CDs been around when Bing Crosby was active the order would be different. So that doesn't work. Michael Jackson comes below on that list. Interestingly the highest artist with more than 3 albums in that list is Madonna. Most won awards just depends on what awards you count. And is unfair to early artists from before there were many awards.

Most earned inflation adjustedhow would you measure such a thing? Everybody lies. Dancing ability? Are we talking about musicians? Best writer. Ah that has a possible way to measure. Maybe look at how many cover versions of their songs have become hits for others. That I would be interested to see. Most Tabloid? I personally don't care, the fact that Garry Glitter has a lot of Tabloid coverage certainly doesn't make him a better musician or make his music "better".

Now this is, of course, just my opinion. I would be interested to see any analysis you do along these lines. Feel free to use the data we provide to help. Seems strange that the Platters didn't make the list.

Look on the s page. They are artist 18 of the decade and artist 2 of and artist of the whole site. I'm gonna suggest that you should make a different strategy for artistsuccess. Prince in the 80s made an album nearly every year compared to Jackson.

Jackson made 3 not counting "victory " because he barely took part. So clearly Prince will be higher because he made way more songs and albums. That doesn't mean he is more successful it means he had way more exposure opportunities yet his best album doesn't compare to jacksons.

Your status system is flawed. What you should of done is total number of hits divided by albums or songs as a term for value of weight. What you suggest would focus on the most high scoring albums or songs, we already have a listing for that. If we measure an artist's average album success, as you suggest, then the top 10 of all time looks like:.

If you want to find a measure which forces Michael Jackson to the top then this isn't it. Could expand or explain on Elvis Presley's hits or gold records.

They certainly have more voice range than Michael ever did to my mind! Your criteria is flawed. I think you systematically created a formula to place Michael Jackson low on your list. He only released two albums in the 80s and due to a technicality he wouldn't have the opportunity to chart as well as Madonna who released albums as frequently as she visited the toilet.

Through all your endeavours and failings to make an accurate criteria here are a few other questions I pose. Stevie Wonder had three of the best records ever released in history in the 70s. All three were critically acclaimed and influenced the very artists you've listed Elton John said Songs In The Key Of Life was the greatest record of all timeyet Stevie Wonder misses your list completely.

I assume chart success is simply limited to western world countries that monitor their chart, which leads to a misleading title 'Most successful artists of the US in each decade' would be accurate. Your title is misleading, so your research and findings are amateur. If your research doesn't include every country of the world, it should be clearly stated.

Chart success as the only means to measure a musicians success is incorrectly labelled. Success is also measured through endorsement deals, awards of recognition, contract signings, world tours, television ratings, etc. For example, statistics that are readily available and work WITH your theory of 'no opinion - facts' would say Michael Jackson signed the biggest endorsement deal of the 80s with Pepsi.

Michael Jackson won more awards than any artist in the history of music, including artist of the year and decade of every awards show in the world including the grammys, AMAs, world music awards, etc. Michael Jackson signed the biggest recording contract of all time in the 80s with Sony. Michael Jackson's performance at Motowns 25th anniversary had over 50 million viewers. Quite simply, your criteria is flawed and you cannot generate a 'comeback' todisprove my claims because I am stated facts.

Your criteria is one dimensional and lacks common sense. The thought that the scoring system was especially designed to put down Michael Jackson is If we wanted to reduce a single artist's impact that would be easy, but why would we go to all the effort of creating such a comprehensive listing with data from for example if our goal was so stupid?

If you had you would know that we have put a lot of effort into getting as good a "world view" as possible. We certainly cannot be accused of overly focusing on the US. Even if that extra data was available it wouldn't contribute to a "world view". Other measures: Your suggestions rather illustrate the point, first of all there are no reliable sources for any of the measures you mention, just look at how Jackson's fans lie about the sizes of world tours etc, secondly even if there were such "facts" available the selection of which to include and what weight to give them would provide ample opportunity for promoting favoured acts or eras.

Your statement that "Michael Jackson won more awards than any artist in the history of music" is exactly the type of subjective unverifiable thing we try to avoid. We can't see any reasonable way to compare or contrast these two "facts". The fact is that, as far as we can see, consolidating chart input is the least bad way to measure the success of musical acts.

If you can think of a better one set up your own web site. Once you've done that come back and tell us about it, until you've acually put some work in your opinions are pretty much worthless. The way we gather data is very good for periods longer than about 10 years ago.

We don't trust our results after about so any results for the current decade are, at best, dubious. I'm pretty sure janet was the second most succesful artist of the 90's andmichael was the N. They don't even make it to the top 50 of the 70s.

You can see why on their artist page, first while they had success in the USA they didn't do well elsewhere, secondly their period of greatest success straddled the 60s and 70s. Honestly pretty surprised to see no Goodman for the 30s. I trust your system,but I gotta say, I found that very interesting. Also, that Al Jolson came in second behind Paul Whiteman.

Very cool chart here. Definitely not surprised to see Bing in first place for 2 decades, though. That man absolutely dominated the airwaves. If you look at the s page you will find Benny Goodman at number 7 for the s. Given that he had few hits that feels about right to us. He was the top act of by our numbers.

You know I'm looking at the older comments saying that Mariah Carey should be the number 1 artist of the 90's but I'm looking at the table above and Mariah is number 1. So did something change, was there a mistake? Like no joke, I mean great for her she is very talented. There was no mistake, the thing is that the order of these lists is determined by the data. The main thing that has changed is that the way the numbers are combined has been refined.

When did you born? Surprised not to see her listed at all, particularly in the 70's. Didn't she rank at all? She had the 35th song of the s and is artist of all time in v2.

Not enough hit albums basically. Remember that albums contribute twice what songs do. Of course you can download the CSV file and try some alternative way to calculate. Michael jackson is the most successful of all time in 80's and 90's ,Everyone around the world knows who he is and how much talent he hadhe also is the most famous person in the world that ever live.

This is not a vote, here we deal with facts not opinions, Michael Jackson had fewer hit songs and albums than the artists listed higher. By that definition he was not "the most successful of all time in 80's". What about Cher? She had hits music almost every decade from the sixties on. Since when did you change her rank? I've read some old comments and the argueswere about why Madonna was no.

Did you change your calculation or something :-? We did change the calculation. The version numbers indicate the scoring system as well as fixes in the data. The 2. X scoring switched the order. To be honest for the s whether Madonna or Mariah are number one in the s depends on the fine details of the calculation, in reality they are close enough to each other that the difference isn't significant.

We can say that the two of them are well ahead of the rest of the s acts. What about Phil Collins? Tallying his work from Genesis and his solo career,he has more hits and chart time than anyone from the 80s. I see you guys have received a lot of hateful comments, and it saddens me to see people unable to look past their preconceived notions of who should be where.

I admire your logarithms and think it's very cool to be able to look at various points in history and see who is on top and when. Just an idea, but I think it'd be cool to add in. Anyways, don't let anyone stop you! Good luck! Interesting suggestion. Actually since we make all our data available as a CSV file anyone can try various combinations using that data.

If anyone finds a good way to apply these ideas we'd be interested to hear from you. Are u kidding me? Usher has the MOST number 1 hit singles and the biggestselling album 'Confessions' within the entire 's decade, and isn't even in the top 5?? Did you read what it says at the top of the page? I think you might find this paper interesting. It's a Cross-evaluation of metrics to estimate the significance of creative works, it applied to films, but it might be interesting the same method applied to the music industry.

Hope you find it useful! Interesting, since it relies on "references" from one work to another I can't see how to apply it to music at least at the level of songs and albums we deal with.

I think I know the answer to this question but when will the current decade get its own page? First let me say that you can generate pretty much what that page would have on it from the CSV download file with a little sorting.

As we've said in many other places it takes about 5 years for the results we create to be "reliable" becuase of missing data and issues with consolidation, etc so at the moment we would not trust any of our own results from later than about The site generation software could easily be modified to start generating the s page now, but the results would be so questionable that we would not be happy to put them out there. Our guess would be that we would wait until we had a few reliable years before turning on the s page something like ?

The "correct" way to solve this issue would be for someone to create a companion site that does this type of global consolidation but only for dates after, saythat way it could take advantage of the greater volume of data available and avoid the heavy maths we have to do to fairly combine the s with the s. If anyone fancies taking on such a challange we'd be happy to discuss. This is just one way of calibrating success.

There are many other ways as well. For example, fame, worldwide album sales, world tour grosses or the number of total attendees, success in specific genres etc. If you take any of these into account, the list would be very very different. This is a relatively personal account of mine but Prince never was as famous or popular as Michael although I like prince a lot too worldwide. First lets deal with your claims, while it is likely that "Thriller" sold more than 40M copies and it is almost certainly the best selling album of all time "Bad" probably sold more like 30M copies and is almost certainly NOT in the top 10 selling albums of all time.

And that is exactly the issue, some measures, such as worldwide album sales, world tour grosses and number of concert attendees have no reliable sources and a lot of silly claims. Using them to assess success would deliver unreliable results.

As for "success in specific genres" we don't even know where we could find such a measure. In contrast "position in charts" is possible to find for periods starting in and is reliable from the s onward in some places. The claim that we have not mentioned how we convert chart positions to a measure of "success" is both insulting and clearly wrong. We have described in detail how these rankings are generated just follow the links on this page and actually read the text rather than guessing what it will say.

We have also provided the raw data so you can do your own calculation, and invited anyone to explain either why this approach is unfair to certain artists or suggest how it could be improved.

One possible measure that would be an improvement would be to look at all the material released by an artist and see what proportion of it reached the charts. If you think you can do that we'd be interested to look at the results, if you are not prepared to put in that work we'll continue to rely on our results we have done the work you see.

We don't see how the statement that, according to our measure, in the s U2 had more success that Michael Jackson is in any way "trashing" him. This is just a statement of fact. Thank you for creating this very informative site. Some of the artists listedas being the highest charting of a certain year or decade are completely different to what I had expected, but I trust that your data is far more reliable than my guesses.

It's also interesting to see who the top artists of the early decades are - I would imagine that most people nowadays have never heard of Billy Murray or the Peerless Quartet, and yet they were once the most successful artists in the world.

I'm also curious about how much these lists would change if you did it for ten year periods starting at a different point, e. I'm guessing that some of the artists on these lists only rank as highly as they do because they happened to have all of their hit singles and albums within particular decades. Thanks for the kind words. You raise an interesting question, given that one could claim the main "seismic shifts" in music occurred in, say, and then the periods,etc would each seem to be more internally consistent than the arbitrary division by decade.

When we're using this data to generate our own "hits of the era" playlists we tend to do so for 5 year periods for example. The decades just seem to us to have too much diversity.

We would agree that the division into decades does artificially favour certain artists, of course shifting to 5 year periods or starting each decade at a different "year number" would boost a different but just as arbitrary set of artists.

But you don't need to wonder about who would be, say, the highest scoring artists for albums fromyou can download our CSV file and quickly do the calculation yourself the answer is "U2", "Madonna" and "Prince" are all about the same and ahead of all the others, unless we allow "Original Soundtrack". Playing with the CSV file in a spreadseet provides some interesting insights into the "bigger picture". We would recommend it but, of course we are data nerds.

If you find something interesting we'd like to hear about it. No matter what, the most important is not the number 1 place, is who you love.

Many do not realize that The Osmonds have sold over million records. In the early 70's they beat out both The Beatles and Elvis for the most gold records received in one year at MJ made his own music! And he did play instruments. MJ didn't need anyinstrumentalist to create songs for him. He made the melody and all the arrangement himself.

If i repeat a song on some instrument that makes me a musician?

Try To Remember / The Way We Were (Live) - Various - Juke-Box Romantic Hits #3 (CD), Goodbye My Love - The Glitter Band - Rock n Roll Dudes (Vinyl, LP, Album), Phase 2 (Remix) - Various - Happy Hardcore Essentials (CD), Roselan Yus - Raja Tinju Dunia (Muhammed Ali) (Vinyl), Easy To Be Hard - Three Dog Night - Suitable For Framing (Vinyl, LP, Album), Seven Nights - Dee Clark - Wondering (Vinyl, LP), Center Of The Universe - Various - Le Sampler-Rom RockHard N°18 (CD), A Bird Called Fish - Bauer - Baueresque (Vinyl, LP), Il Faut Tourner la Page, Puppet Cabaret - Friska Viljor - Bravo! (Vinyl, LP, Album), Old Blue - Joan Baez - 2 Originals Of Joan Baez Vol. 1 (Vinyl, LP), Be There - The Pointer Sisters* - Be There (Vinyl), To Love You More - Various - Orbital Dance Hits (CD), Banks Of The Ohio - Heidi Hauge - Country Rose (CD, Album)

9 thoughts on “Hes Funny That Way - Billie Holiday - The Lady Of The Blues (Vinyl, LP)

  1. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow dresdner-christstollen.biz more.

  2. qq音乐是腾讯公司推出的一款免费音乐服务,海量音乐在线试听、最流行音乐在线首发、歌词翻译、手机铃声下载、高品质音乐试听、正版音乐下载、免费空间背景音乐设置、mv观看等,是互联网音乐播放和下 .

  3. Adele 2. Drake 3. Taylor Swift 4. Rihanna 5. Ed Sheeran The Top 10 will also include 6. Bruno Mars 7. Lady Gaga 8. Katy Perry 9. Justin Bieber Ariana Grande or Maroon 5 or Pink. You'd be wrong Ed Sheeran is WAY out in front (other than that you are close), we have all that data on the chart site.

  4. Aug 12,  · 3, Likes, 39 Comments - William & Mary (@william_and_mary) on Instagram: “Move-In looks a little different this year, and we know there are mixed emotions right now. We want ”.

  5. Aug 13,  · yarısı alsatçı emlakçı telefoncu taksici olan ülke 40; bim'in başarısının sırrı 77; irfan can kahveci 14; dresdner-christstollen.biz 26; adayınız nerede 28; citroen ami ; kafa dengi biriyle evlenip birlikte vakit geçirmek 71; kitap okumak 14; nagehan alçı 18; ign tüm zamanların en iyi oyunu anketi ; youtube'un aşı karşıtı içerikleri kaldırma kararı

  6. Likes, 3 Comments - UW-Milwaukee (@uwmilwaukee) on Instagram: “Happy #PantherPrideFriday 🐾💛 Tag us in your photos to be featured on our page or in our Photos of ”.

  7. Subaru's EJ engine was a litre horizontally-opposed (or 'boxer') four-cylinder petrol engine. For Australia, the EJ engine was first introduced in the Subaru SG Forester in

  8. Get to know your Apple Watch by trying out the taps swipes, and presses you'll be using most. Here are some helpful navigation tips and features.

  9. Subaru's EZ30R was a litre horizontally-opposed (or 'boxer') six-cylinder petrol engine. Replacing Subaru's EZ30D, the EZ30R engine was first introduced in the Subaru BP Outback R in and subsequently offered in the Subaru BL/BP Liberty R and Subaru dresdner-christstollen.bized to the EZ30D engine, changes for the EZ30R included: A lighter cylinder head and block by ‘eliminating excessive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *