Expecting Rain

Bob has sold 70 million records, according to wikipedia. An Austrian, Udo Jurgens, has sold 100 million (along with The Pet Shop Boys), and Nana Mouskouri has sold 200 million. The list of 'inferior' artists that have outsold Dylan is staggering. The Beatles and Elvis have sold 1 billion.

When Grossman tried to play Columbia off against other labels, in order to secure a better deal, back in '66, one look at the ledger, at the height of Dylan's fame, convinced Columbia execs to successfully play hardball with the 'floating buddha'. Even back then, it seems, Dylan never sold in big chunky chunks. Any fanboy conflagrations over the commercial viability of mono re-releases versus demo recording releases clearly has to be referred to the governmet office of Two Bald men Fighting Over a Comb.

I've always found Dylan record sales numbers hard to believe.

Highway 61 / BIABH / B O B, all main staples of any record collection have been selling since the 60's...that has to start to add up.

My latest archenemy, everybody. Not sure what I did to piss this one off since I've actually said anything to her, but there you go.

So the argument, if I'm following this correctly, is:

There are artists who have outsold Dylan. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many units BS9/Mono moves since Udo Jurgens has had better sales.

Okay then.

From Hermin's Hermets to Britney Spears, Dylan has been outsold by lots of people. His profile is much larger than his sales. Of course, so is Townes Van Zant's and many others.

Do they have a tapping section at Dylan shows as they did as the Dead? Many legendary bands have not sold many records. All these bootlegs may have hurt record sales

Man, if only... that would be amazing.

I guess they do not. I do not think many bands do it these days. The Dead were different in that they did not make a record hoping it sells. However they were excited when In the Dark went gold!

Too bad there is no way to count bootlegs.....

When you see those numbers it makes you really start to see why he is gets a bit nuts about the idea of bootlegs..... Just think if you could have ONLY bought regular albums.... how many more could he have sold.... how many live albums.... even if you did cheap versions, grouped together packages.... if they were reasonable and the ONLY choice they would sell and ran those numbers thru the sky....

actually just as well you cannot count them.... it just might straighten Bob's hair with the shock.... I am sure the number is bigger than even he and his crew can imagine....

This is just like statistics....you can make them appear to be anything you want....

I'm shocked that he's sold more than Coldplay, more than Beyonce, and the same as Enya and Iron Maiden (over a slightly longer time frame admittedly). And Nana Mouskouri is one of the biggest selling artists of all time, selling about as much as the Rolling Stones. He's sold consistently for a long period of time. It's safe to say he makes plenty of money for his record company. Not sure if the figures are entirely reliable though.

But the money he makes from royalties more then makes up for it.

I was going to say. Bob must have as many covers as anyone in the business this side of The Beatles. Surely, there's big dough there. No doubt he does all right even if he isn't swimming in it like Sir Paul.

In a way the low figures for Bob aren't all that surprising, when you think about it. His music is so fundamentally rooted in his lyrics, he's unlikely to have that visceral appeal outside the Anglo-Saxon world (plus a few European countries) that The Beatles and Stones have. His harsh voice, the simplicity of the arrangements - without the balm of his magnificent lyrics (and the pleasures of his inimitable phrasing) these would all serve to make him a bit baffling to the masses beyond the English-speaking universe. Of course, this hypothesis could be disproven by any data showing that he sells a ton in, say, Asia. So the question is, how much of this disparity lies in the *global* appeal of these other acts, versus the more 'regional' appeal of Dylan? Beats me.

This is the clincher. How many of those top selling bands (artists) have as many covers as Dylan. Not many, if any.

EDIT: Lone Pilgrim beat me to the draw.

What he should try and imagine is how many downloads of professionally mixed soundboards he'd sell in 2011 at $10 each, from the never ending tour alone.

I will take a guess:

3,247,896,145,610,309,817,651

he has never been a massive seller but certain albums have been very consistent sellers. this explains the number of 'best of' compilations put out by a desperate company. He'd do better selling his own bootlegs at gigs like most proper bands do! (hell, its easy enough to start flogging that nights gig twenty minutes after the shows over!) but the real money has always been in publishing and as he has been covered by just about everyone there is a bucketload of moolah right there.... especially since he wowns his own publishing, right? paul simon sussed this out in the mid sixties, so did harry nillson who was hardly a massive star but probably earnt as much as dylan during his lifetime.... the real dough aint just in sales....

At the present time I have what I consider to be plenty of Bob Dylan albums and my current purchasing plans are directed elsewhere so I don't expect to be helping very much bring up those sales numbers for Bob, important as it may or may not be for Bob.

Yeah, and that's just the money he'd earn from Untrodden Path! Just think how well he'd do with other ER members thrown in too.

Anyways, it doesn't really surprise me that Dylan's not a big seller. Considering that he's one of the highest held musicians in the rock canon, he really doesn't have all that many fans (that second part is actually pretty surprising).

On the other hand, Jimi Hendrix, from what I know, has sold substantially less albums, and he's both critically and commercially acclaimed (although he has far less albums).

he is also far more dead!

Far less albums.
Far more dead.
Faaaaaaaaaar more fans, which essentially makes the other two void (see: Kurt Cobain).

The royalties have clearly made him his fortune. Kind of ironic, isn't it, that Austria's Olivia Newton John, who found fame with her cover of If Not For You (thereby contributing to that royalties haul), has outsold Dylan to the tune of 30 million records? As has Billy Joel. Ouch, Bob.

The Hell does that have to do with anything? Continue down that line of thinking and soon we're crowning Justin Timberlake King of All Music. And Titanic is the best movie ever made. You're seriously taunting one millionaire with the finances of another? I'm sure he loses sleep over the whole ordeal.

Bob needs to bring sexy back.

Been there, done that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW4QpZV9O5Q

Do you remember who wrote the operas of the 17th century or who sang them?

I am sure that Dylan has enough money to last down a couple of generations in style....
and as to the place in history, you cannot buy what he has with his song writing....

not that I don't intend to add to that records sold number by buying all the new stuff
coming out....

Status Quo, 118m.

Some of you all seem to overlooking the fact that "70 million" is rather a lot of records.

If I remember correctly, didn't it say in the Biograph (1985) notes that Dylan had sold 35 million records? So, if correct, his 1962 to 1984 sales (23 years' worth) was doubled over the 1985 to 2009 (25 years') period. But I think that sounds about right.

The thing is, Dylan has never had pop appeal, but for maybe a brief period in 1965-66 -- and even then, covers of his songs were far outselling his own.

I suppose his new albums sold the most in 1965 to 1976. He didn't really shift large numbers before Highway 61 and mid-1965, and after Desire (1976) he hasn't had a really huge seller.

The other aspect, of course, is that he's never had a lot of pop singles to advertise his music.