What's new

Queen overtake the Beatles as most successful albums act in UK history (1 Viewer)

Jan H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
2,007
"Thanks for the enlightening commentary. How did you find the time to do so much research?"

No research necessary for such a ludicrous comparison.
Look, Queen is fun. I own 'Greatest Hits.' But IMO, they'll be better remembered 100 years from now for their bombast and showmanship than for their songs (unless of course, one is attending a sporting event). The Beatles will live forever.

FWIW, according to RIAA:

Beatles : 168 million units sold

Queen: 31 million units sold

I realize these are American figures, but I'd be willing to bet the Beatles have sold far more albums in the UK than Queen has, too. Just because they've 'charted' more weeks than the Beatles, doesn't mean they outsell them. Nowhere does that article say how many times Queen was #88.
 

Phil A

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2000
Messages
3,236
Location
Central FL
Real Name
Phil
I was also able to find sales of recorded music by country (at least for a recent yr.) which is as follows:


Retail Recorded Music Sales Ranking by Value (2003)

2003 Rank Country Value—
($000,000 US) % of World
1 USA 11,848 37
2 Japan 4,910 15
3 UK 3,216 10
4 France 2,115 7
5 Germany 2,022 6
6 Canada 676 2
7 Australia 674 2
8 Italy 645 2
9 Spain 596 2
10 Netherlands 499 2
 

Jan H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
2,007
Good site, Phil. :emoji_thumbsup:

Wow, Back in Black is now the worldwide #2 selling album of all time? I guess that makes sense, though. As part of my job, I see loads of teenagers with AC/DC shirts on all the time.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,402
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman

Considering that (until recently, and it's questionable whether this really counts) Queen hasn't played live in well over 10 years, and they still get plenty of radio play, I don't see that happening.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,402
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
Apropos to this discussion, here's a link to an interesting article about melody in Queen songs. About 3/4 of the way in, there's a statistical (!) comparison to The Beatles' repertoire.

"The Queen Anomaly"

Again, who's "better" is personal and subjective -- this was just an interesting article to read.
 

RichP

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 26, 1998
Messages
295


What an ignorant, asinine comment this is. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Queen released some real stinkers during their tenure to go along with the good ones.

Nothing "toe-curlingly embarassing" about Bicycle or Fat-Bottom Girls or Radio Ga Ga or "FLASH! AH AH" at all, right? Every quality artist -- and that includes both The Beatles and Queen -- is going to have pieces that "make you wince." I would argue that if they didn't, they didn't take enough chances and experiment enough with their craft. Both those bands were great experimenters and should be rewarded for their creativity.

Why people feel the need to ignorantly denigrate one band -- or even the fans of that band directly -- whilst attempting to elevate the other is beyond me. Haven't you people gotten past grade school? :thumbsdown:
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762
Oh dear, another raw nerve touched. I was enjoying this discussion, but as people are now treating lively debate over a piece of fluff as something fundamental to their very existence, I'm off to discuss something lighter, like terrorist bombings.
Lighten up, guys. :D
 

Michael Allred

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
1,720
Location
MI
Real Name
Michael

Here's another misleading statement about the Beatles.

What "tools" exactly are you refering to? The ones the Beatles took from Little Richard? Chuck Berry?

There's only ONE artist to have truly changed the rock landscape and that wasn't the Beatles. His name was Elvis.

By the by, there was a Rolling Stone interview with Lennon and in it he said "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" (by ahem, Queen) inspired him to record music again. Imagine that, a "joke" performer inspiring a BEATLE!
 

Michael Allred

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
1,720
Location
MI
Real Name
Michael

Queen were always more popular outside of America. While today's society is slightly less concerned with homosexuality, when Queen were active, Freddie's sexuality played a big part in their fall. Back then, rock fans wanted "macho men" which Freddie obviously wasn't.

Anyway, back in 1995, Queen were reported to have sold in excess of 130 million albums and that was before figuring sales of their biggest studio album ever, "Made In Heaven." Factor in the other albums released since then and I would guesstimate they're at or around 200 million. Not too bad for a "joke band."
 

Michael Allred

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
1,720
Location
MI
Real Name
Michael

I would agree with you that every artist had some silly songs in their catalog but c'mon, "Flash" was written with the campy "Flash Gordon" movie in mind. Things like that you need to take into consideration.

On the surface, "Radio Ga Ga" might seem bad, if you only look at the title of the song that is. Read the lyrics, it's a heartfelt tribute to radio...MUSIC and how meaning is getting lost in the age of images and MTV.

"Fat Bottomed Girls" is just your typical rock song about women. Is anybody expecting something tender and romantic with a song title like that?
 

RichP

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 26, 1998
Messages
295
You may want to explain concepts like "context" to Mr. Markworthy, who doesn't seem to grasp them.

The ridiculous double standards that each band's respective fanboys use to defend their choice is truly head-shaking. It's music people, not a football (soccer) match. It's all good.

 

Michael Allred

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
1,720
Location
MI
Real Name
Michael

Then don't?

Seriously though, if we've gone from the ridiculous notion that "The Beatles created rock music" to the even more ridiculous "Elvis was nothing" mindsets, then perhaps this thread should be closed.
 

AnthonyC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2004
Messages
2,342
I never said that Elvis was nothing. But if you're just going to totally ignore the Beatles' contribution to music, then you have to ignore nearly every single artist (including Queen) since the mid-1960s.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
351,067
Messages
4,940,921
Members
142,977
Latest member
Goldeck
Recent bookmarks
0
Top