It wasn't until the '70s that the album really became the norm in pop music.

'Strooth. One of the main reasons why there are so many 70s albums covered in Lost In The Grooves.

Elton also had 18 top ten singles from 71-76.

That's six years. Undeniably Elton was the major commercial force in pop during the early 70s, but nobody's going to out-poll the Beatles on these kinds of numbers. Their dominance is the standard.

nobody's going to out-poll the Beatles on these kinds of numbers

ITA. The Beatles are completely the standard, but Elton's popularity in the early 70s was pretty huge, and to achieve even a shadow of the the success of the Beatles is astonishing.

nobody's going to out-poll the Beatles on these kinds of numbers

Not in the '70s. Elvis in the '50s and early '60s, maybe.

Not in the '70s. Elvis in the '50s and early '60s, maybe.

And maybe G'nor Heritzar in the 2320's.

</stupid Star Trek joke>

Not in the '70s. Elvis in the '50s and early '60s, maybe.

In cultural impact, Elvis was probably a bigger shift in sensibilities. In pure numbers he's close to the Beatles, but they've sold more. And I expect they'll sell more going forward than Elvis.

It's always interesting to see where the big numbers were. You can almost watch New Country growing directly out of the fact that The Eagles Greatest Hits is the biggest seller ever. It's cool checking out the catalog sales too, 'cuz then you stop worrying about Gordon Gano's mortgage payments.

Best Selling Records Of All Time

Best Selling Artists of All Time (in millions)

1. Beatles -164.5
2. Led Zeppelin - 105.0
3. Garth Brooks - 104.0
4. Elvis Presley - 86.5
5. Eagles - 83.5
6. Billy Joel - 76.5
7. Pink Floyd - 73.5
8. Barbara Streisand - 67.0
9. Elton John - 64.5
10. AC/DC - 63.0 (Rock!)
11. Aerosmith - 60.5
12. Madonna - 59.0
13. Michael Jackson - 58.0
14. Bruce Springsteen - 56.5
15. Rolling Stones - 53.5
16. Mariah Carey - 53.0
17. Whitney Houston - 52.0 (that's a lot of coke)
18. Van Halen - 50.5
19. Kenny Rogers - 50.5
20. George Strait - 50.5 (huh - that's cool)

Neil Diamond, Fleetwood Mac, Kenny G., U2, Alabama, Celine Dion...

I get it that not everyone likes U2, and some people downright loathe them. But how about reviewing the album, and not sniping about iPod ads and putting a bunch of "Bono thinks he's God" jokes at the end? How is that an album review?

I don't know this critic at all, but I'm sorry his review hurt you, Alicia. The EW review wasn't stellar either, but it was still on the positive side. Your comments reminded me of Lisa Schwarzbaum's "review" of The Machinist, which, rather, than review the movie, eviscerated Christian Bale for daring to lose weight for a role and belittle the plight of starving people everywhere, or something.

But how about reviewing the album, and not sniping about iPod ads and putting a bunch of "Bono thinks he's God" jokes at the end?

Ugh. Yeah, that would bug.

The EW review wasn't stellar either, but it was still on the positive side.

I think the EW critic (and I don't have the magazine here, so I could be way wrong) basically felt that this was a perfectly good U2 album, but not a "we're gonna take apart our sound, and put it together in a shinier way, and CONQUER THE WORLD once more" album like ""The Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby" or even, to some extent, '"All That You Can't Leave Behind." Which I actually don't disagree with. It's a good album, maybe even a near-great one. But it's safely Joshua Tree/ATYCLB-esque, and this is a band that hasn't been interested in safe sounds, historically. So I love it for what it is, but at the same time wish they'd kept going with the electronica and experimentation a little more.

And '70's Elton John is frigging awesome. He had a very good run. he can still pull it out once in a while. (See; "I Want Love," from a few years ago.)

I think that's an apt comparison, P-C. I should go back and read it again, if I'm going to rail against it. I know my reaction was very knee-jerk. But on the other hand, I don't think I want to waste my time on something that upsets me irrationally.

And Lyra, I always wonder when reading reviews of U2 albums if expectations are just too high. Maybe they've made the album THEY wanted to make, rather than what the music world expects of them.

Personally, I want them to make the records THEY want to make, because then they're more likely to continue caring about the music, and perform better shows.