NLOTH Singles Chart Watch

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes, I agree.

Germany 500,000+
Italy 550,000
UK probably about 700,000
Netherlands 100,000+
Spain 100,000+
#1 in France and other territories.

Zoorpa sold very well in 1993.

I think that Queen's Greatest Hits II was more on over 9 million by the end of 1992 and early 1993.

UK 2,100,000
Germany 2,000,000
France 1,300,000 by March 1993 (certified diamond in 1992)
Italy 1,000,000
Spain 500,000
Sweden (best selling international album of 1992)
Switzerland 200,000
Austria 125,000
Netherlands 400,000+ (#1 during 13 weeks between the end of 1991 and 1992)
Finand best selling international album ever by now and 5 weeks #1

You can check the above information in the links I provided in my previous post. Those countries account, altogether, for as much as 82% of all sales in Europe and add up close to 8 million for the Queen title. Therefore, it should have been on 9,500,000 by then. By now, it is indeed on over 12,000,000 because of its catalog sales.

Even in small markets, it was a record breaker. In Hungary, the band received a especial award for the best selling abum ever; and according to a Billboard issue, from 1993, it had sold 60,000+ in Czech Republic.

But obviously, it achieved the biggest part of its popularity in Latin America. In Argentina, for example, Queen are amazingly popular. That album was the best selling English title of the decade, and was certified diamond in Oct 1999 for sales of 506,000 by then. Obviously, about 400,000 of them had been done by the end of 1992 and early 1993. In Brazil too, the album went double platinum in 1997 (500,000).

Why are we discussing U2 vs Queen sales? I mean, it´s not like Queen are one of the greatest bands in terms of sales. A band that benefited from the demise of one of its members to finally break into the US is certainly not among the greatest bands ever in my eyes.
 
Why are we discussing U2 vs Queen sales? I mean, it´s not like Queen are one of the greatest bands in terms of sales. A band that benefited from the demise of one of its members to finally break into the US is certainly not among the greatest bands ever in my eyes.

I agree with this.
 
Why are we discussing U2 vs Queen sales? I mean, it´s not like Queen are one of the greatest bands in terms of sales. A band that benefited from the demise of one of its members to finally break into the US is certainly not among the greatest bands ever in my eyes.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to discuss about both groups. Maoil was talking about the best selling albums of the last part of 1991, 1992 and 1993 (basically, the first part of the 90's). And what I did was to merely bring Queen to the debate because, wheher you like it or not, they were one of the top selling bands of the period. I'm very passionate about sales and Queen but I hate "fights". Sorry for the off-topic. I don't like it when people quarrel over sales figures and that kind of issues, I do obviously love chart and sales stats but not to a degree in which people become rude to each other. It is nasty and doesn't contribute in anything.

If you think what you think about Queen, that is your own decision, but your words sound a bit "despective", a bit like you trying to cause an argument.

Anyway, think what you want but here some things that I need to correct:

-Queen sold more albums and more records before 1991 than they did after that, in North America. When Freddie Mercury died in November 1991, the band enjoyed a surge in sales compared to what they were doing in late 80's. But at the end of the day, Classic Queen could only make it #4 (#34 of 1992, as Maoil said) and Bohemian Rhapsody #2 on the Billboard hot 100 chart. They sell an average of 1 million units in USA since Soundscan started tracking albums, but their success was more impressive during the 70's and early 80's. A Night At the Opera was #8 best selling LP of 1976 (#3 international); News Of The World sold over 3 million units in less than a year; and The Game was a big selling title, #1 during 5 weeks in 1980 and 4 million copies (apart from Anther One Bites The Dust and Crazy Little Thing Called Love, both of which reached #1 in USA).

-When we talk about worldwide sales, that means worldwide sales. Just because Queen weren't as popular in USA as a few other groups, doesn't mean they arent one of the best sellling bands (check Abba or Dire Straits). Also, there are other markets apart from USA. Here the top 10 historical markets:

1-USA
2-Japan
3-UK
4-Germany
5-France

Just like U2 sold 50% more than Queen in USA (which nobody denies); Queen outsold the Irish group by a similar margin in UK, Germany and Japan. Every market cares here, not just USA.

In Germany, U2 are certified for sales of 5,050,000 (estimated 7 million sold, albums), while Queen are certified for sales of 11,250,000 (estimated total sales are 15 million, albums). So Queen sold more than twice as much as U2 in the third biggest market of the world. The same in Japan.

If Queen didn't make it big in USA, then U2 didn't either in Japan or Germany compared to U2, or even in UK. But it doen't make sense, to either dismiss U2's success in those three territories (where they sold a lot) or dismiss Queen's success in USA (where they sold a lot).

The other markets:

6-Canada
7-Italy
8-Spain
9-Australia
10-Netherlands
 
They are shipments as of May 17, 1993. The Rest Of The World figure can actually be broken down into figures for 46 different countries. At that time Ecuador had the lowest sales of any of the countries in the list at 930 copies. Germany had the highest at 725,674 after Canada and the United States.

As for Queen Greatest Hits, I'll believe it when I view the information. I'm not saying your incorrect. As for total sales in the early 1990s, I think U2 takes this. For example just in the USA, Joshua Tree was certified for 5 million in sales at the end of 1988. By the fall of 1995, its sales had doubled to 10 million, most of that from sales in the early 1990s. Plus were only talking about the United States. Achtung Baby increased to 14 million worldwide by 1995. In the USA, War went from Platinum to 4 times platinum. Under A Blood Red Sky went from Platinum to 3 times Platinum in the USA, Unforgettable Fire went from Platinum to 3 times Platinum in the USA, Rattle And Hum went from 3 times platinum to 5 times platinum just in the USA.

U2 is one of the biggest album sellers of all time, and the majority of their album sales came in the period from March 1987 to December 1995.

this is all very interesting, Im not sure of the timescales for these certifications, but one thing I would comment on in is that being certified as 3xplat from 1xplat in a year does not necessarily mean it sold 2M in that year, for example JT hasnt been reclassified since 1995, surely if it were to be it would jump from 10xplat upto 12-13xplat, but that wouldnt mean it sold 2-3M in 2009.

Queen were/are much bigger outside of the US than they are in the US. while other bands G&R, Pearl Jam, metallica have been the other way around. U2 while maybe slightly less in the US than some bands and less in Europe than others, combined they were / are the biggest.
 
The IFPI started giving out Plat & Gold Euro awards for a few albums in Apr '91 & Queen's Greates Hits 2 was certified 4xP for sales of 4m on Feb 8th '92 - as was GH 1 5xp for 5m. GH 2 spent another 9 wks at the top of the Euro chart that year (out of a 12 wk total) & was the 20th best seller of '92 in UK with sales of about 400k...it probably sold another approx 2m in Europe that year, to give a Euro total of about 6m by end of '92. To date it's estimated to be one of the biggest selling European albums ever with sales of about 12m.

Btw, here's the Music & Media top 10 Euro albums of 1992 :

1. Queen - GH 2
2. Genesis - We Can't Dance
3. Michael Jackson - Dangerous
4. Simply Red - Stars
5. Nirvana - Nevermind
6. Guns N' Roses - Use Your Illusion 2
7. Lionel Richie - Back To Front
8. U2 - Achtung Baby
9. Elton John - The One
10. Queen - GH 1

33. Metallica - Metallica

That's based on chart runs on their top 100 chart from around Nov '91-Nov '92

So we have by the end of 1992:

Queen Greatest Hits 2:
Europe: 6 million
USA: 1 million

U2 Achtung Baby:
Europe: 3.5 million
USA: 4.5 million

Total USA/Europe sales Achtung Baby: 8 million
Total USA/Europe sales Greatest Hits 2: 7 million


I'd say the figures are close enough that anyone could speculate that one sold more than the other, without seeing solid confirmed totals for each time period worldwide.

Thanks for posting that European top 10 chart, I had speculated that the only albums that outsold Achtung Baby in 1992 worldwide were "We Can't Dance", Dangerous, and Nevermind. Achtung Baby outsold all the albums in the USA on the European top 10 list except for Nevermind and Dangerous.
 
And many more. As I said, Queen sold over 30 million copies worldwide between 1991, 1992 and the first part of 1993, and just counting 4 albums (not mentioning back catalog sales). In Europe, those 9 markets above are 82% of all sales in that continent.

I'm a fan, I know what I'm saying. Outside North America, Queen sold more albums and records than any other groups apart from the Beatles.

Just remember, U2 sold over 85 million albums from March 1987 to October 1995.
 
Hi guys

Just looked at the ARIA singles charts and I can't see Magnificent in the top 50 singles. Whats the go here? I haven't even heard the song on Triple M radio. Has it been released yet or is the song doing really badly.

Cheers


No official release yet (no CD single planned according to JB Hifi, not on iTunes as separate track) but the video clip has been featured on Rage. No idea why this is though.
 
So we have by the end of 1992:

Queen Greatest Hits 2:
Europe: 6 million
USA: 1 million

U2 Achtung Baby:
Europe: 3.5 million
USA: 4.5 million

Total USA/Europe sales Achtung Baby: 8 million
Total USA/Europe sales Greatest Hits 2: 7 million


I'd say the figures are close enough that anyone could speculate that one sold more than the other, without seeing solid confirmed totals for each time period worldwide.

Thanks for posting that European top 10 chart, I had speculated that the only albums that outsold Achtung Baby in 1992 worldwide were "We Can't Dance", Dangerous, and Nevermind. Achtung Baby outsold all the albums in the USA on the European top 10 list except for Nevermind and Dangerous.

I agree about the lack of solid confirmed totals. Many regions aren't accounted or difficult to gauge.

But anyway, I think that I have provided enough evidence to support my point.

Based on official certifications:

UK 5x platinum 1,500,000
Germany 4xplatinum 2,000,000
Italy 1,000,000
France diamond 1,000,000
Switzerland 4xpatinum 200,000
Sweden platinum 100,000+
Netherlands platinum 100,000+
Austria 3xplatinum 150,000
Spain 5xplatinum 500,000

Total in these 9 countries is 6,550,000. How can it only have sold 6 million when the album had confirmed sales of at least 6,550,000 in those 9 countries I mentioned?.

Netherlands and Sweden didn't have multi-platinum awards back then, a bit like USA prior to 1984. That is the reason why Queen's Greatest Hits 2 had sold more than what you see in my above numbers. In Netherlands, the album was the best selling of the year in 1992 and charted a few weeks through 1993; there was no chart action until 1997 when it was certified 5 times platinum for sales of 500,000+ there (multi-platinum albums exist since 1996 in that country). Based on chart performnce, it is clear that it had sold about 400,000+ of those 500,000 already by the end of 1992 or early 1993. The same for Sweden, while only platinum, it was the best selling intermnational album of the year, after spending 6 months in the top 10 and a year in the top 40; it obviously sold about 250,000+ in 1992 with such a great performance.

In UK, it was certified 5 times platinum in Jun 1992 (1,500,000) and then it sold a further 518,472 during the second half of that year, from July to December. That is 2,018,472 by the end of 1992.

All in all, we get, as I said:

UK 2,018,472
Germany 2,000,000
France 1,300,000 by March 1993 (certified diamond in 1992)
Italy 1,000,000
Spain 500,000
Sweden 250,000+
Switzerland 200,000
Austria 150,000+
Netherlands 400,000+

That is close to 8 million already in those 9 countries. I don't see why you keep questioning these figure since I have provided enough evidence to support it.

The album was big all over Latin America, South Africa, and other parts.

In USA, as I said, the album had sold 1,500,000 units by mid year, while still charting. It can't only have sold 1 million alone. It did more.
 
Sorry, I wasn't trying to discuss about both groups. Maoil was talking about the best selling albums of the last part of 1991, 1992 and 1993 (basically, the first part of the 90's). And what I did was to merely bring Queen to the debate because, wheher you like it or not, they were one of the top selling bands of the period. I'm very passionate about sales and Queen but I hate "fights". Sorry for the off-topic. I don't like it when people quarrel over sales figures and that kind of issues, I do obviously love chart and sales stats but not to a degree in which people become rude to each other. It is nasty and doesn't contribute in anything.

If you think what you think about Queen, that is your own decision, but your words sound a bit "despective", a bit like you trying to cause an argument.

Anyway, think what you want but here some things that I need to correct:

-Queen sold more albums and more records before 1991 than they did after that, in North America. When Freddie Mercury died in November 1991, the band enjoyed a surge in sales compared to what they were doing in late 80's. But at the end of the day, Classic Queen could only make it #4 (#34 of 1992, as Maoil said) and Bohemian Rhapsody #2 on the Billboard hot 100 chart. They sell an average of 1 million units in USA since Soundscan started tracking albums, but their success was more impressive during the 70's and early 80's. A Night At the Opera was #8 best selling LP of 1976 (#3 international); News Of The World sold over 3 million units in less than a year; and The Game was a big selling title, #1 during 5 weeks in 1980 and 4 million copies (apart from Anther One Bites The Dust and Crazy Little Thing Called Love, both of which reached #1 in USA).

-When we talk about worldwide sales, that means worldwide sales. Just because Queen weren't as popular in USA as a few other groups, doesn't mean they arent one of the best sellling bands (check Abba or Dire Straits). Also, there are other markets apart from USA. Here the top 10 historical markets:

1-USA
2-Japan
3-UK
4-Germany
5-France

Just like U2 sold 50% more than Queen in USA (which nobody denies); Queen outsold the Irish group by a similar margin in UK, Germany and Japan. Every market cares here, not just USA.

In Germany, U2 are certified for sales of 5,050,000 (estimated 7 million sold, albums), while Queen are certified for sales of 11,250,000 (estimated total sales are 15 million, albums). So Queen sold more than twice as much as U2 in the third biggest market of the world. The same in Japan.

If Queen didn't make it big in USA, then U2 didn't either in Japan or Germany compared to U2, or even in UK. But it doen't make sense, to either dismiss U2's success in those three territories (where they sold a lot) or dismiss Queen's success in USA (where they sold a lot).

The other markets:

6-Canada
7-Italy
8-Spain
9-Australia
10-Netherlands

So, what are the current global sales for Queen? And for the sake of comparison, could you discriminate between sales prior and after Freddie's death?
Last time I checked, worldwide sales for Queen were not close to U2´s even disregarding the fact that a high percentage of Queen´s sales happened after they retired (for obvious reasons). I thank God nothing like that has happened to any of the members of U2 but if it were the case sales for the irish band would skyrocket adding quite a few millions to their current grand total.
 
I agree about the lack of solid confirmed totals. Many regions aren't accounted or difficult to gauge.

But anyway, I think that I have provided enough evidence to support my point.

Based on official certifications:

UK 5x platinum 1,500,000
Germany 4xplatinum 2,000,000
Italy 1,000,000
France diamond 1,000,000
Switzerland 4xpatinum 200,000
Sweden platinum 100,000+
Netherlands platinum 100,000+
Austria 3xplatinum 150,000
Spain 5xplatinum 500,000

Total in these 9 countries is 6,550,000. How can it only have sold 6 million when the album had confirmed sales of at least 6,550,000 in those 9 countries I mentioned?.

Netherlands and Sweden didn't have multi-platinum awards back then, a bit like USA prior to 1984. That is the reason why Queen's Greatest Hits 2 had sold more than what you see in my above numbers. In Netherlands, the album was the best selling of the year in 1992 and charted a few weeks through 1993; there was no chart action until 1997 when it was certified 5 times platinum for sales of 500,000+ there (multi-platinum albums exist since 1996 in that country). Based on chart performnce, it is clear that it had sold about 400,000+ of those 500,000 already by the end of 1992 or early 1993. The same for Sweden, while only platinum, it was the best selling intermnational album of the year, after spending 6 months in the top 10 and a year in the top 40; it obviously sold about 250,000+ in 1992 with such a great performance.

In UK, it was certified 5 times platinum in Jun 1992 (1,500,000) and then it sold a further 518,472 during the second half of that year, from July to December. That is 2,018,472 by the end of 1992.

All in all, we get, as I said:

UK 2,018,472
Germany 2,000,000
France 1,300,000 by March 1993 (certified diamond in 1992)
Italy 1,000,000
Spain 500,000
Sweden 250,000+
Switzerland 200,000
Austria 150,000+
Netherlands 400,000+

That is close to 8 million already in those 9 countries. I don't see why you keep questioning these figure since I have provided enough evidence to support it.

The album was big all over Latin America, South Africa, and other parts.

In USA, as I said, the album had sold 1,500,000 units by mid year, while still charting. It can't only have sold 1 million alone. It did more.

Well, you also need to consider that Achtung Baby's sales in Europe may have been higher than 3.5 million. Second, Achtung Baby is a studio album, not a greatest hits album, so its actually really absurd to compare the two. People really want to know what are the sales for music that came out within the year from original studio albums of all new music. Sometimes greatest hits and compilation albums without new music are put on a different chart. Third, this is a U2 fan website, not a Queen fan website. Fourth, this is a thread about NLOTH singles, and I think we need to get back to that.
 
Well, you also need to consider that Achtung Baby's sales in Europe may have been higher than 3.5 million. Second, Achtung Baby is a studio album, not a greatest hits album, so its actually really absurd to compare the two. People really want to know what are the sales for music that came out within the year from original studio albums of all new music. Sometimes greatest hits and compilation albums without new music are put on a different chart. Third, this is a U2 fan website, not a Queen fan website. Fourth, this is a thread about NLOTH singles, and I think we need to get back to that.


Well, I don't agree with the equation you posted. In general, studio albums are the ones that sell better in the short-run, on first year of release. Check the biggest selling albums of every year and it will be clear. On the other hand, compilation albums generally sell better in the long-run, over the years once they have become "catalog titles" and are old enough to chart in such lists.

But as you can see, there are exceptions to both rules. Some compilations are immediately successful (like Queen's Greatest Hits 2), while some studio abums do sell a lot over the years (like Joshua Tree and Acthung Baby by U2).

But well, when we talk about the best sellers, any album is counted. And that is the reason why I brought that Queen title and few other to your list, which I thought was very interesting. I don't think that I have done anything that goes against the rules of this forum, and in general, U2 are compared to just about any other act here, and you have been involved in such discussions.

But you are right with this:

Fourth, this is a thread about NLOTH singles, and I think we need to get back to that.

Sorry to any fan who doesn't like it when this kind of conversations become a mess. Keep those U2 singles stats coming. :up:

Fede, responderé a tu pregunta por privado si encuentro algo. Tengo un par de datos de U2 que quizá te interesen, pero no aquí porque los usuarios se pueden enojar.
 
Isn't this chart physical sales only. Did Magnificent get to #4 just off of sales of imports?

Good question. I don't know for sure, but I do think you are correct, so the remixes caused Magnificent to chart high, and these were in fact pre-orders, at least in some cases. As for the Dance Singles Chart, I'm not sure if that includes downloads or not, but Magnificent is #2 on that chart. I am thinking that Magnificent remixes will not count towards the album cut/single edit version on the BB Hot 100...hence all the niche charts maybe?

On the Hot Dance Club Top 50, that chart looks to have SLOW movement, which is why Magnificent is highlighted as "Power Pick", as it's gone from 55 to 33 to 24 since it showed up on DJ playlists. It may result in a number one position for U2 on a BB chart other than Triple A.
 
Music Charts dot net has updated for the period of May 18-24, and U2 again have two singles in the Worldwide Singles Top 100 chart.

Boots re-enters the chart at #98 in it's 17th week, after peaking at #10 in March. Magnificent reverses course and rises from 48 to 44 in it's 5th week, peaking at 33 just two weeks ago...but perhaps it can climb higher if the remixes are promoted and released worldwide (if remixes count...think they do).
 
Why are we discussing U2 vs Queen sales? I mean, it´s not like Queen are one of the greatest bands in terms of sales. A band that benefited from the demise of one of its members to finally break into the US is certainly not among the greatest bands ever in my eyes.

I did not follow the whole discussion here, but I completely disagree with your comment. It's not fair to judge Queen on what happened in the US according to you. Still their album sales are estimated at 32,5 million in the US and more than 300 million worldwide. And they were popular far far before Mercury's death, also in the US. I don't wanna discuss who is better as an artist, but a statement that Queen is not one of the greatest bands in terms of sales cannot be taken serious
 
I did not follow the whole discussion here, but I completely disagree with your comment. It's not fair to judge Queen on what happened in the US according to you. Still their album sales are estimated at 32,5 million in the US and more than 300 million worldwide. And they were popular far far before Mercury's death, also in the US. I don't wanna discuss who is better as an artist, but a statement that Queen is not one of the greatest bands in terms of sales cannot be taken serious

Again, what proportion of Queen sales happened AFTER Mercury´s death? How many copies have the greatest hits albums sold combined?
That was my original point.

I doubt Queen have sold 300 million albums worldwide (or are you taking into account singles as well?). I mean, if that were true the only band that would surpass them in sales are the Beatles.
 
Again, what proportion of Queen sales happened AFTER Mercury´s death? How many copies have the greatest hits albums sold combined?
That was my original point.

I doubt Queen have sold 300 million albums worldwide (or are you taking into account singles as well?). I mean, if that were true the only band that would surpass them in sales are the Beatles.


That claim is from 2006, but it obviously counts every unit sold (albums singles, home videos, digital sales and everything). Even more, I think that each double album was counted twice, and so on.

In reality, the only two groups that sold more records than Queen (counting all formats) are the Beatles and Rolling Stones worldwide.

Albums ony, Queen are on about 170 million based on what top sites claimed with sales. It is difficult to know how many of them were achieved prior to Freddie Mercury's death and after, but roughly 90 million had been sold until 1991 and the rest by now. Their compilations take the biggest share of those sales, I guess. They also sold 60 million singles, and countless DVDs and digital copies.

But well, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to dismiss Queen's success ever since 1991 up to now. And for a number of factor:

1) Other acts, like the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin or even Pink Floyd achieved the biggest part of their sales after they died or retired or broke up. And I don't anyone quetioning their success worldwide, only Queen for some reason.

2) Also, from 1974 (when Queen basically started selling records) to early 1991, the markets were far smaller than they were between 1992 and early 2000 (where they were at an all-time big, specially between about 1997 and 2003).
 
Again, what proportion of Queen sales happened AFTER Mercury´s death? How many copies have the greatest hits albums sold combined?
That was my original point.

I doubt Queen have sold 300 million albums worldwide (or are you taking into account singles as well?). I mean, if that were true the only band that would surpass them in sales are the Beatles.

Yes I wa taking into account singles as well.
Besides The Beatles, at least Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, ABBA and Michael Jackson are ahead of Queen (in sales). The Rolling Stones for example sold less albums.
 
Start another thread - Single CHart Watch!!

Come on people. This is meant to be a thread on singles not album sales. For those people interested in how 'Magnificent' is going this is getting annoying.

My two cents. Please do not be offended - I am a long time U2 fan.

I think U2 have decided that altho single success would definitely be nice that given the way the world is now they will make most of their $$$ from touring. Pity as for us fans we want them to do well in the single and album chart.

Go 'Magnificent'!
 
That claim is from 2006, but it obviously counts every unit sold (albums singles, home videos, digital sales and everything). Even more, I think that each double album was counted twice, and so on.

In reality, the only two groups that sold more records than Queen (counting all formats) are the Beatles and Rolling Stones worldwide.

Albums ony, Queen are on about 170 million based on what top sites claimed with sales. It is difficult to know how many of them were achieved prior to Freddie Mercury's death and after, but roughly 90 million had been sold until 1991 and the rest by now. Their compilations take the biggest share of those sales, I guess. They also sold 60 million singles, and countless DVDs and digital copies.

But well, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to dismiss Queen's success ever since 1991 up to now. And for a number of factor:

1) Other acts, like the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin or even Pink Floyd achieved the biggest part of their sales after they died or retired or broke up. And I don't anyone quetioning their success worldwide, only Queen for some reason.

2) Also, from 1974 (when Queen basically started selling records) to early 1991, the markets were far smaller than they were between 1992 and early 2000 (where they were at an all-time big, specially between about 1997 and 2003).

But the difference is that those other artists you´ve mentioned were huge before their death or split-up. Queen wasn´t.
I bet that the vast majority of those 80 million albums they sold after Freddie´s death were sold between 1991-1995, i.e. in a mere five years period as opposed 18 years (from 1991 to 2009) as one would tend to believe.
Queen were very big outside US well before 1991 but if a band is not able to "conquer" the most important music market in the world it hardly may be considered as one of the all time greatest bands. And that was my original point. Think of Oasis and that claim about them being the biggest band on earth during the 90´s. That was a joke. And no, by no means am I comparing Queen and Oasis. That would be another joke:D

You mentioned Argentina as one of the countries where the greatest hits compilations sold incredibly well. That´s true but let me tell you that most of the argentinian people didn´t care about Queen before Freddie died. When that happened all of a sudden Queen was everywhere and lots of people rushed to buy Queen albums, specially their greatest hits. I know this is something expected but maybe not on this scale.

Finally, I like Queen´s music quite a lot and consider Mercury one of the greatest singer ever.

So now back to the greatest band on earth!
 
But the difference is that those other artists you´ve mentioned were huge before their death or split-up. Queen wasn´t.
I bet that the vast majority of those 80 million albums they sold after Freddie´s death were sold between 1991-1995, i.e. in a mere five years period as opposed 18 years (from 1991 to 2009) as one would tend to believe.
Queen were very big outside US well before 1991 but if a band is not able to "conquer" the most important music market in the world it hardly may be considered as one of the all time greatest bands. And that was my original point. Think of Oasis and that claim about them being the biggest band on earth during the 90´s. That was a joke. And no, by no means am I comparing Queen and Oasis. That would be another joke:D

You mentioned Argentina as one of the countries where the greatest hits compilations sold incredibly well. That´s true but let me tell you that most of the argentinian people didn´t care about Queen before Freddie died. When that happened all of a sudden Queen was everywhere and lots of people rushed to buy Queen albums, specially their greatest hits. I know this is something expected but maybe not on this scale.

Finally, I like Queen´s music quite a lot and consider Mercury one of the greatest singer ever.

So now back to the greatest band on earth!

Well, Elvis Presley had never been that big outside of the English speaking counries before 1977, check his albums and singles chart histories in most territories. Back then, it was very difficult to really become big in many regions, and it was thanks to acts like Abba, Queen, Bee Gees and a few others that Western acts could break in such places as Middle East, Asia, and others.

Led Zeppelin's sales were always a bit hit and miss outside North America and Uk, for example. And their popularity faded in most important Eurpean territories like Germany, Italy, Spain, where they only had one or two successful albums, but after they retired, they started selling much more as a "catalog" group.

Pink Floyd'd sales were big before 1983 and so on, but according to Billboard, they had sold about 60 million albums worldwide by about 1986. By now, they have sold 190 million, just to show how much their sales have increased while they were mainly inactive. According to EMI, they are the group that sold the most copies over the last 25 years on catalog based on their information.

I could go on, with countless examples.

I really don't see how you can say that Queen weren't huge before 1991, to be honest. It is a question of opinions. But, for example, News Of The World had sold over 7 million units by the end of 1978 (just one year after it ws released) and the single We Are The Champions over 5 million units. That works out to be 12 million records overall, from two titles. In 1980 and early 1981, they sold over 4 million of The Game and Another One Bites The Dust each; overall, they did roughly 12 million records in just a bit more than a year and just in USA. That album, The Game, was one of the biggest hits in Europe during the summer of 1980, as well as Latin America, Israel, South Africa and more. I could go on in explaining how each tite fared to show that they were big. All I can say is that they had sold over 90 million albums by early 1991 and 40/45 million singles by that moment, which means that they had only been surpassed by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Abba, and Bee Gees as a band counting all formats. But you say that they weren't "huge". :hmm:

As I said, USA isn't the only country that cares. U2 have sold 50% more than Queen did there; but at the same time, Queen have sold twice as much as U2 in Germany and Japan (#2 and #4 biggest mrkets in the world), and much more in UK (#3 market worldwide). So based on your comment, I could claim that U2 aren't big in three of the most important markets worldwide (Japan, Uk, and Germany) compared to Queen, but would that make sense?.

As for Argentina, I'm from this country. :wink: And Queen were already big before 1991. Look at this article:

"J. M. COSTA, - Buenos Aires - 10/03/1981

Argentina sigue viviendo el Mundial-78, su éxito del Mundial. Tal vez por ello, cuando la semana pasada Freddie Mercury, cantante de Queen, soltaba aquello de We are the champions (Nosotros somos los campeones), el estadio Vélez Sarsfield temblaba emocionado porque en ese momento se unían dos orgullos nacionales: el gol de Kempes y la apertura de Argentina a los grandes, grandísimos conciertos de rock internacionales.
A Suramérica no suelen ir los grupos punteros de rock. O, al menos, no van cuando se encuentran en su mejor momento, y siempre lo hacen con un equipo reducido, nada que ver con lo habitual en Europa, Estados Unidos o Japón. Es una simple cuestión logística y un prejuicio descalificador. A pesar de ello, y como un reto, Queen (120.000 elepés de The game vendidos) y su apoderado comenzaron a trabajar en esa idea hace casi un año. Se trataba de mostrar cómo puede ser rentable montar una gira de este tipo sin por ello perder dinero, metiendo a casi medio millón de personas en ocho actuaciones. Y hacerlo a lo grande y por vez primera al aire libre.Desde Tokio, donde acababa de actuar el grupo, se fletó un avión de carga (un DC-8) para transportar parte del equipo de luces y sonido." (March 10, 1981)

The Game had sold 120,000 LPs by two days after their tour. With the tour effect, it continued to sell well until the rest of the year, and ended up on 200,000 units. Name one single U2 album that has sold that many in Argentina. If Queen weren't big in Argentina, U2 (and many international acts for that matter) weren't either by your own logic.

But you are right when you said how Queen's sales increased after 1991, I can't deny it. They released their Greatest Hits II a few weeks before Freddie Mercury's death, and the album entered the chart here in Argentina at #5, which means there was already demand for the band even befored Freddie died. The album has now sold 650,000 copies. Made In Heaven was #1 in 1992 and went double platinum in 2001 for sales of 120,000+ copies.

As for the bands's sales, I think that a big share of them came from the period between 1991 and 1995, like you rightly explained. Actually, in one of my previous messages, I provided enough evidence to support it. But well, their sales have been massive since 2002 up through early 2009, mainly because of their musical We Will Rock You. For example, in Japan, they sold 1,781,001 copies in 2004 alone and are basically the biggest selling group of the last 5 years. In markets like Argentina, Brazil, Korea or even Uk, they are still selling as much as active acts like Madonna, for example. It is unbelievable.

Glad that you like Queen. I'm a big fan. I'm a fan of most classic bands, including U2, I far prefer their recent stuff to any "current" band at the moment. But I'm not a troll here. I just happen to be very passionate about these issues. I even have some Italian U2's sales that may interest you. If you want, I can send them to you.:up: Sorry for off-topic again. And yes, U2 are biggest band right now as have since 1987.
 
agreed....i think you guys should start another thread on the album discussion....this is a singles thread ;)
 
.

I think U2 have decided that altho single success would definitely be nice that given the way the world is now they will make most of their $$$ from touring. Pity as for us fans we want them to do well in the single and album chart.

Go 'Magnificent'!

Its not as though the band has to choose between touring or selling albums. They do both. Selling albums drives up demand for the tour, and the tour should drive up some demand for the album. If the band had just put the album out there with no plans to tour, it would not have sold as much to this point.

In any event, the band are doing amazingly well on the album charts. The album is the biggest selling album of the year worldwide, and by a considerable margin!

The point of singles is to help the album sell, but if your selling albums without hit singles, then it does not really matter. Selling 1 million albums is the same as selling 10 million singles!
 
I was always under the impression that the revival of interest in Queen's music came not after Freddie's death, but after the inclusion of Bohemian Rhapsody in the Wayne's World soundtrack. That song and video was getting played non-stop on radio and MTV.
 
I was always under the impression that the revival of interest in Queen's music came not after Freddie's death, but after the inclusion of Bohemian Rhapsody in the Wayne's World soundtrack. That song and video was getting played non-stop on radio and MTV.

Yeah I think the song hit #2 twice--separated by a few years (because of the soundtrack).


But yeah, I think this thread should get back on track. Any new Magnificent updates?
 
Magnificent appears to have peaked across U.S. radio, although it has had a slight uptick per Mediabase on the Rock Format. The remix, on the other hand, climbs another 8 spots this week on Billboard's "Hot Dance/Club Play" chart, again the pacesetter, to land at #16. It may still hit #1 on a Billboard chart.
 
Magnificent appears to have peaked across U.S. radio, although it has had a slight uptick per Mediabase on the Rock Format. The remix, on the other hand, climbs another 8 spots this week on Billboard's "Hot Dance/Club Play" chart, again the pacesetter, to land at #16. It may still hit #1 on a Billboard chart.

And the Remix EP is supposed to drop on Tuesday. We'll see if it has any effect.
 
Mag is up to #34 on the Euro Top 100 singles this week, it's highest position so far, due to it entering at #25 in Germany & #51 in Austria. It's run so far on the Euro chart is : 35-51-60-34
 
Back
Top Bottom