UK's Best Selling Artists/Albums/Singles

[Robbie]

Pierpinto
According to that MJD thread, Bad's (shop) sales were about 3.0 million. We don't have figures for 1990/1991 but sales for 1992 were just 54,000.

Shop sales could have been about 3.25m 1992 plus about 0.25m for club sales (I previously rounded it up to 0.3m) that is 3.5m. Still short of the BPI certified award of 3.9m or 4m + apparently claimed by Sony then.

Adele/21
If she has sold just over 4m, why then the shipments of 4.5m. Surely there are now no club sales, the OCC has almost 100% of the album market. Are there 500,000 knocking around in shops?

The OCC are still at about 95% / 96% of the album market and it appears (based on a post made by MFR at another website) that the OCC figures only calculate sales within that 96% (the "defined universe sales" - DUS). Sales outside of the DUS are apparently not calculated by the OCC. On an album with very high sales such as "21" this would mean a large number of over the counter sales were not being captured.

The best way to illustrate this is to look at the sales of "21" in 2011. I hope MFR doesn't mind me quoting a post he recently made at Haven:

The figures we see in Music Week are not ordinarily intended to be total sales. They are the Defined Universe Sales (DUS), representing around 95% of the total market, with record companies adjusting these figures if they wish to account for stock shipped outside the defined universe.

At least, 95% was the percentage that applied in 1997. Has it changed much since then?

An article in the January 13th 2012 Music Week gave an insight into this. While the year-end chart report gave 21's sale for 2011 as 3,772,346, a separate piece about sales of entertainment products said 21 had a sale of 3,924,985. This latter figure represented physical sales grossed-up to the whole market, plus digitals. Therefore for 21 the DUS is at 96.1% of the estimated overall market.

Other albums differed. Michael Buble's Christmas had DUS at 95.8% of the estimated total market, Bruno Mars's Doo-Wops and Hooligans had DUS at 96.0% and Adele's 19 had DUS at 95.7%.

On that basis Adele's 4,020,833 up to last Saturday perhaps equates to a market estimate of close to 4,185,000.

Additionally, BPI awards are based on firm invoiced orders from the UK retail trade (though downloads work differently). Copies ordered do not have to be in the shops. They can be in warehouses or in the process of being delivered.

So the 15xP award claim and the DUS figures reported seem consistent.

In response I wrote

I was under the impression that the OCC used sampling to calculate all sales including those that take place outside the DUS. In the past Alan Jones gave the impression that this was what the OCC did. I must have misunderstood what he's written.

and MFR replied with

A lot of what has been written has perhaps been ambiguous, but what I think Alan has sometimes been saying describes the conversion process from the sample to the DUS. The problem with estimating what is sold outside the defined universe is, of course, that such sales are entirely unknown to OCC, or 'undefined'.

OCC literature identifies what is not in the defined universe and explains to record companies how to convert DUS to market, which basically involves multiplying up to allow for whatever percentage of product is shipped outside the defined universe for a particular title. Only the record company and its distributors would know what that percentage is for each title.

I doubt that record companies bother to do these calculations very often, the instructions merely enabling them to calculate something the panel sales times a multiplier method used to give them automatically should they wish to.

I'd seen the "grossed up" figures for "21" back in January, they appeared in a press release* from the Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA, the retailers trade body), had noticed the higher sales figure when compared with the figure provided by the OCC and now I recall had even commented on it but then totally forgot about it.

So basically, there are close to an extra 200,000 sales of "21" that have been estimated to have occurred which are not accounted for in the OCC sales figures.

* here is the ERA press release from January

http://www.eraltd.org/news/era-news/cal ... adele.aspx

[MFR]

I hope MFR doesn't mind me quoting a post he recently made at Haven:

No, I don't mind, Robbie. I was just thinking about copying my post from Haven when I saw your post.

[phoenix83]

Is it possible for you to explain why the songs on albums like "Sgt Peppers", "The Dark Side Of The Moon", "Brothers In Arms" or "Morning Glory" are better than those on "Greatest Hits II"? For someone who is so sure about something (as you are), you have to have some solid reasons and grounds to back it up. Could you please expand on it?

Hello - Hey Now - Roll With It - Morning Glory - Wonderwall - Don't Look Back In Anger - Some Might Say - Champagne Supernova - She's Electric

I did that from memory (not the order of the tracks for the pedantic among you). "Morning Glory" was the defining album of its era in the UK and every track is a classic IMHO. (Hehe, I forgot "Cast No Shadow" so maybe not quite!)

I also know the biggest songs from "Brothers In Arms" ("Money For Nothing", "So Far Away", "Walk Of Life", the title track) and "Sgt Peppers" ("With A Little Help From My Friends", "A Day In The Life", "Lucy In The Sky..", title track). Those songs alone are enough to lift he albums above GH II by Queen.

"Dark Side Of The Moon" - universally regarded as a classic although I'll be honest I'm not personally familiar with it.

GH II still the worst on the list.

[johnnyboy]

Robbie/MFR
Now that is has been mentioned I do recall reading that OCC's sales are not 'scaled up' (like for example Gallup's was).
Adele's 21 has total sales of around 4, 200,000. The remaining 300,000 (up to its 4.5m certification) would of course not only be in shops but warehouses, orders etc.

The OCC figures for all the Top 10 on this list would exclude varying amounts of sales. Arguably sales for ABBA and Oasis - in the Top 10 list here, exclude a higher proportion of sales than other albums. They were released in the 90s when club sales were at the highest.

HUR
Phoenix83 (or indeed myself) do not have to justify or 'back up' why we aren't too impressed with Queen's Greatest Hits Vol 2. It's down to personal preference.

I would imagine QGHV2 or MJ's BAD have the weakest 'catalogue' sales of albums aon the All Time Top 10 list. Perhaps suggesting they haven't stood the test of time as some other albums on the list.

[HUR]

Dear Johnny,

I didn't ask for any explanation to you. I don't see (in Phoenix83) someone who is talking about his "personal preference"; I just see a poster trying to pass his 'opinions' (if they can be called opinions, of course) as 'facts'. After all, it was Bergkamp2004 who claimed something (about Adele's album being the worst album on that list), and Phoenix83 just contradicted him out of nothing and for no apparent reason.

Surely, for someone who is sure about something, he should be able to validate his points with some more arguments. And of course, he doesn't have to do anything, I'm just interested in why he thinks certain things and I decided to ask him about it, what is the problem? If he doesn't want to explain it, no problem, it is up to him to decide. But obviously, if Phoenix83 wants his opinions to be respected, he should have done the same with Bergkamp2004's comments in the first place. Anyway, I'm not judging anyone, just asking and trying to have a (nice) debate.

If he had said something like "In my opinion, 'Greatest Hits II' is the worst album of all time", I think I wouldn't have commented anything, maybe. But of course, if he is entitled to contradict an user (Bergkamp2004), theoretically, I can do the same thing with him. Although I don't think I'm doing exactly the same thing, but you see the point.

Is it possible for you to explain why the songs on albums like "Sgt Peppers", "The Dark Side Of The Moon", "Brothers In Arms" or "Morning Glory" are better than those on "Greatest Hits II"? For someone who is so sure about something (as you are), you have to have some solid reasons and grounds to back it up. Could you please expand on it?

Hello - Hey Now - Roll With It - Morning Glory - Wonderwall - Don't Look Back In Anger - Some Might Say - Champagne Supernova - She's Electric

I did that from memory (not the order of the tracks for the pedantic among you). "Morning Glory" was the defining album of its era in the UK and every track is a classic IMHO. (Hehe, I forgot "Cast No Shadow" so maybe not quite!)

I also know the biggest songs from "Brothers In Arms" ("Money For Nothing", "So Far Away", "Walk Of Life", the title track) and "Sgt Peppers" ("With A Little Help From My Friends", "A Day In The Life", "Lucy In The Sky..", title track). Those songs alone are enough to lift he albums above GH II by Queen.

"Dark Side Of The Moon" - universally regarded as a classic although I'll be honest I'm not personally familiar with it.

GH II still the worst on the list.

So you are claiming that "The Dark Side Of The Moon" is better than "Greatest Hits II" without having listened to it? lol. If you had written something like "Personally, I'm sure it is better" or comments like that one, it would have been perfectly acceptable; but claiming all these things as if they were "facts", without going any further than mentioning the names of certain songs, is ridiculously pretentious from your part. Sorry, just saying it with due respect.

Not sure if I understood your comment, but you are calling me pedantic? What should I say about you then?

You arguments are a little bit weak, considering how sure you are of certain things. Actually, your attitude made me consider that, perhaps, you had some serious thoughts about these issues, something really interesting to bring to the discussion. But this isn't the case, unfortunately. You can't explain anything, you just mention a couple of songs and that is it.

"Morning Glory" is a nice album, just that. A bunch of nice songs, and nothing more. If you hear it thoroughly, you will notice that many of its songs sound pretty much alike; in fact, many times it sounds as though Noel Gallagher is playing the same routine and ordinary guitar solo. Vocally, it is very poor as ever, and it doesn't offer anything new. With some songs, they just (tried to) copy the Beatles' style.

What I have to admit, to be honest, is that it is very well arranged. But obviously, nothing compared to Queen in that regard.

Seriously, even the guitar solo on "The Invisible Man" (probably the weakest track on "Greatest Hits II") is more produced, inventive and cleverly put into the song (in and out, fitting the concept very well), than anything Gallaguer ever played in his life.

The Beatles' "Sgt Peppers" is an impressive masterwork, of course, but aside from "A Day In The Life", it isn't on the same level as "Greatest Hits II" (song by song, I mean).

Not sure if I understood you correctly, but you didn't listen to "Brothers In Arms" either? Or what? Do you seriously believe those four songs you mentioned are better than those on "Greatest Hits II"? Can you explain why at least? But still, I would really love to read your explanations on this matter.

[MFR]

Robbie/MFR
Now that is has been mentioned I do recall reading that OCC's sales are not 'scaled up' (like for example Gallup's was).

They are scaled up from the sample, but only to the limit of the defined universe, rather than the total market.

The OCC figures for all the Top 10 on this list would exclude varying amounts of sales. Arguably sales for ABBA and Oasis - in the Top 10 list here, exclude a higher proportion of sales than other albums. They were released in the 90s when club sales were at the highest.

This is true of Oasis certainly, provided they are quoting DUS.

If they are using the old panel sales x multiplier method for some or all of 1994-1996, as discussed earlier, there may have been some allowance made for club sales as for everything else believed to be part of the market but not in the defined universe, as supermarkets and Dixons, for example, were not for some of that period.

For ABBA, the suggestion in the above paragraph also applies for 1994-1996 if DUS is not used. For 1992 and 1993 we do not know for certain what has been used as OCC's own data does not start until week 5 of 1994.

[HAL9000]

I would imagine QGHV2 or MJ's BAD have the weakest 'catalogue' sales of albums aon the All Time Top 10 list. Perhaps suggesting they haven't stood the test of time as some other albums on the list.

You must put things into perspective... BAD is some sort of greatest hits because 9 of 11 songs were singles, successful ones. When the average customer comes into the store and wants to buy BAD he has so many different options where he/she can get songs from BAD album:
"The Essential Michael Jackson" has 8 songs from BAD.
"Number Ones" has 5 songs from BAD.
"King of Pop UK Edition" has 4 (or 6 on deluxe edition) songs from BAD.
"This Is It" soundtrack has 4 songs from BAD.
"HIStory" has 4 songs from BAD.
"The Ultimate Collection" has 6 songs from BAD.
Also he/she can buy BAD album in "Bad/Dangerous" package or as a part of "The Collection" box set etc.

Personal taste is irrelevant in this thread but regarding Queen's "Greatest Hits II", in my opinion one of the best Greatest Hits ever, I like it so much that I collected 5 different editions, and I even listen it more than original "Greatest Hits" which is also pure master-piece IMHO.

[Wayne]

I also share the opinion that Greatest Hits II is excellent.

[HUR]

Good points about Michael Jackson, Hal. I completely agree. In the case of "Greatest Hits II", it is also available on "Platinum Collection", which has sold more than 1,800,000 copies from 2002 to 2012; plus whatever it did on its own, I think it sold some 300,000 copies or so during that time frame. About 2,100,000 combined. I'm sure it is more than what most of the British Top 10 sold during the past ten years, although I could be wrong.

Wow you have five copies? Impressive.

[johnnyboy]

Re:Bad's catalogue sales.

Yes, it is on all those compilations. But is doesn't follow that people are buying those compilations because of the 'Bad' songs. Songs from 'Thriller' are also on all those compilations - but its catalogue sales are far higher than Bad's.

Re: Queen's Greatest Hits II
You simply can't add the 300,000 sales of this album to the 1,800,000 sales of the Platinum Collection. Why were people buying The Platinum Collection? Was it because they likes the songs from the Classic Queen Era and as TPC was only maginally more expensive than GHI bought that instead? Or as a collectors item for songs they already owned? Or because of GH3 - which wasn't a huge seller individually. But re-packeged with the other GH albums it was more attractive?

[zeus555]

I'd say that Club Sales for ABBA's 'Gold' would have
been quite large, in the UK.

Logic tells us this. ABBA were far bigger here than
in the USA, but even there, 'Gold' had sold 884,000
Mail order copies, via one USA Music Club alone,
between 1993 & early 2002.

(See Album No.57 in this List).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BM ... ted_States

Soundscan do not add in any of these Sales, as they
did not monitor USA Mail Order Sales - although the
RIAA did, for the purposes of its Sales Awards.

Anyhow, 'Gold' must have sold many thousands of
copies via the Britannia Music Club etc., in the
UK. As would all of the Albums in the Top 10 - bar
'21', which is selling in the Post-Music Club Era.

Zeus555

[teenwildlife]

Ooops!

[zeus555]

Today's 'Music Week' Sales Report, gives Meat Loaf's
'Bat Out Of A Hell', a UK Sale of 3,038,397, to the
W/E 10th March 2012. Which would make it about the
21st to 23rd Best Selling Album, in the UK,(?), &
the 17th to 19th Best Selling Studio Album.(?).

Adele's '21' has 4,061,863 Sales to-date.


Zeus555

[HAL9000]

Re:Bad's catalogue sales.
Yes, it is on all those compilations. But is doesn't follow that people are buying those compilations because of the 'Bad' songs. Songs from 'Thriller' are also on all those compilations - but its catalogue sales are far higher than Bad's.

I never claimed that people are buying all these compilations solely because of the BAD songs. I argue that people have so many different options where they can get them. The fact that there are other great songs on compilations besides the BAD songs is, of course, an additional factor in making decision what to buy. In any case, the undeniable fact is that the BAD songs greatly contributed to the sale of all these albums. From financial side the popularity of certain product is measured only with profit (money) and there are very few songs out there that generated so much money as songs from the album BAD through variety of products.

"Thriller" is the best selling album in the history and its name is constantly running through the media, therefore, it'll always be the album with great catalog sales.

Re: Queen's Greatest Hits II
You simply can't add the 300,000 sales of this album to the 1,800,000 sales of the Platinum Collection. Why were people buying The Platinum Collection? Was it because they likes the songs from the Classic Queen Era and as TPC was only maginally more expensive than GHI bought that instead? Or as a collectors item for songs they already owned? Or because of GH3 - which wasn't a huge seller individually. But re-packeged with the other GH albums it was more attractive?

GHII is very important part of TPC and it has a very significant synergistic effect on buyers' decision why to buy TPC, and number of copies sold speak volumes about the popularity of the product. Anyway, GHII certainly isn't some kind of a unnecessary bonus which buyer gets with purchasing TPC.

[HUR]

Re: Queen's Greatest Hits II
You simply can't add the 300,000 sales of this album to the 1,800,000 sales of the Platinum Collection. Why were people buying The Platinum Collection? Was it because they likes the songs from the Classic Queen Era and as TPC was only maginally more expensive than GHI bought that instead? Or as a collectors item for songs they already owned? Or because of GH3 - which wasn't a huge seller individually. But re-packeged with the other GH albums it was more attractive?

Hello Johnny,

I was just adding the total, because whether it is liked or not, that is what the disc "Greatest Hits II" sold during the last ten or eleven years, combining its sales as an individual album and as part of "Platinum Collection".

However, I agree: if Queen hadn't released "Platinum Collection", "Greatest Hits II" woulnd't have sold 2,100,000 copies on its own during the ten years between 2001 and 2012, or so.

Nevertheless, you will agree with me that it would have sold significantly more than it actually did, if EMI hadn't put out the triple box set. It is very simple.

This is what the album sold between 1994 and 2000, as a back catalogue album (through both shops and music clubs):

1994: 171,741
1995: 161,760
1996: 147,219
1997: 92,892
1998: 77,739
1999: 99,796
2000: 87,524

Total for those seven years: 838,671 copies sold (a healthy 118,000 copies a year).

By comparison, "Greatest Hits" sold 1,023,158 copies during the same time frame, which means that "Greatest Hits II" sold about 80 per cent of its predecessor.

"Platinum Collection" was released in 2000. As a result, the sales of "Greatest Hits II" were knocked:

2001: 56,647
2002: 40,814
2003: 24,438
2004: 11,147
2005: 37,616
2006: 76,764
2007: 18,674
2008: 46,394

Total for those eight years: 312,494 copies (39,000 units annually). Surely more than 350,000 sales counting 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Definitely, the triple album clearly affected the individual sales of "Greatest Hits II". The first "Greatest Hits" was also affected, just not as much.

I guess that had "Platinum Collection" never seen the light of day, the following would have happened:

-Greatest Hits would have sold 1,000,000 more than it did.

-Greatest Hits II would have sold 700,000 more.

-Greatest Hits III would have sold 100,000 more (it wasn’t a big seller like you said).

In my opinion, without "Platinum Collection" on the market, "Greatest Hits II" would have sold 1,000,000 copies between 2001 and 2012.

That is as much or more than: "Sgt Peppers", "The Dark Side Of The Moon", "Brothers In Arms", "Morning Glory", and possibly "Thriller" and "Bad" (as Hal said, without those various compilations, those two Michael Jackson albums would have sold more, but perhaps not more than my assumption for "Greatest Hits II", which is a good one if you ask me). Here "21" doesn't count because it hasn't had to deal with the "test of time" yet.

Don't worry, Johnny. When it comes to the test of time, Queen are doing fine in the UK, not sure what the future holds (the last two years haven't been that good).

And last but not least, when it comes to all back catalogue albums sales (studio, live and compilation albums), it is very obvious that Queen have sold more than any other band, for the past 28 years (from 1984 to 2012) in the UK. I'm nearly sure about it, not even the Beatles sold as many 'back catalogue albums' as Queen during that time frame.

For the record, I go as far back as 1984, because that was the first year Record Mirror provided a 'best selling albums act' ranking, with some sales numbers revealed. If I had some totals from previous years (1981, 1982 and 1983), I would add them. I posted a detailed breakdown in the following link: http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.p ... start=2725.

[johnnyboy]

I guess that had "Platinum Collection" never seen the light of day, the following would have happened:

-Greatest Hits would have sold 1,000,000 more than it did.

-Greatest Hits II would have sold 700,000 more.

-Greatest Hits III would have sold 100,000 more (it wasn’t a big seller like you said).

In my opinion, without "Platinum Collection" on the market, "Greatest Hits II" would have sold 1,000,000 copies between 2001 and 2012.

You mean 700,000. That's good but ABBA Gold released just a year after Queen's Greatest Hits Vol 2 has sold over 2,000,000 since 2000. That's better

Looking at the catalogue for Queen's Greatest Hits Vol 1 and ABBA Gold - using the "Official" figures.

Queen Greatest Hits - 1981
Total sales 5.2m (excluding TPC)
First 2 years+ 1.2m
Catalogue sales 4m (1984-2011)/28 yrs
Avergage catalogue sale = 143,000
Average adjusted sales = 178,000 (assuming an extra million sales if TPC never existed)

ABBA Gold - 1992
Total sales 5.0m
First 2 years+ 1.1
Catalogue sales 3.9m (1995-2011)/17 yrs
Average catalogue sales 229,000

ABBA Gold's catalogue sales are far more impressive, whichever way you look at it.

Bear in mind the following advantages the Queen album had.
- Released 11 years before GOLD so has an 11 year 'headstart' in sales
- Originally on vinyl (with about 2m vinyl/cassette sales) before being released on CD.
- Death of high-profile lead singer generated huge sales
-It was the first Queen compilation. ABBA had several before Gold.

Re;Bad vs Thriller
Clearly Bad does not have the iconic status or critical accalim of Bad - and that explains the difference in catalogue sales.

[HAL9000]

Johnny, would be fair to mention the fact that in 1999 it was released mega-successful stage musical "Mamma Mia!" and later in 2008 it was released a movie "Mamma Mia!" which would become the most successful movie ever in the UK (later surpassed by "Avatar"). Thanks to the musical in 1999 and the film in 2008, ABBA's "Gold" generated amazing sales, it returned to #1 on Albums chart on both occasion. I would like to see sales figures for these two years alone...
Of course, Queen also got their share of doping with musical "We Will Rock You" in 2002 which contributed to great sale of TPC, but not to such extent as is in the ABBA's case.

By the way, HUR, very nice analysis of Queen's back catalogue sales in the UK on link you posted.

Re;Bad vs Thriller
Clearly Bad does not have the iconic status or critical accalim of Thriller - and that explains the difference in catalogue sales.

Fixed!

[HUR]

You mean 700,000.

No, I do mean 1,000,000 copies for "Greatest Hits II": counting 300,000 sales (which it actually sold) and 700,000 copies (that I assume "Platinum Collection" 'stole' from it). Thus an estimated 1,000,000 sold. Just my opinion, it could be a bit less than that (maybe 900,000 or even 800,000). But regardless, it is enough for it to be in the same league as most of that British Top 10, perhaps a little bit more than most albums (with such exceptions as Queen's "Greatest Hits" and "Gold").

ABBA Gold's catalogue sales are far more impressive, whichever way you look at it.

I agree. As far as individual albums are concerned, "Gold" has had the most impressive back catalogue sales out of the albums inside the Top 10 (and outside too, to be fair). But I don't understand something.

Were you claiming that "Greatest Hits II" or "Bad" aren't passing "the test of time" on the only basis that "Gold" sold more than them? Or what? You could also claim, based on that reasoning, that "The Dark Side Of The Moon" or any Beatles' album didn't pass it either.

But yes, "Gold" is the biggest catalogue seller as an individual album.

Counting all albums (not just one compilation or one studio album, but entire catalogues), it is very obvious, in my opinion, that Queen have had bigger catalogue sales than any other group during the last 28 years or so, for whatever reasons that was the case (the beginning of the CD era, Freddie Mercury's passing, We Will Rock You musical, and so on). I think the Beatles are close, but to me, slightly below them. Groups like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, U2, Abba, the Rolling Stones and others also did great, but not as much as Queen; and trust me, I have been monitoring plenty of charts stats for that time frame (1984 to 2012).

I understand your comment about the switch from vinyl to the compact disc during the eighties, but you are making it look as though anyone whose albums were reissued, achieved great sales. No, just some acts did that. For example, Abba's old albums were also released on the new format, but they didn't sell that much back then.

You forgot to mention (as explained by Hal) the Mamma Mia film in 2008, which broke several records and the fact the musical started several years before the Queen one. Plus, "Gold" reached it peak between 1999 and 2000 and the again in 2008; while Queen's "Greatest Hits" did so in 1981 and 1982, and again in 1991 and 1992, with worse market conditions.

And yes, "Greatest Hits" was the first Queen compilation. But let's just be fair: "Gold" covers Abba's whole career, whereas a good share of Queen's biggest hits (not matter how much you dislike them) are included on the second compilation. Basically, their hits are split into two different compilations, while "Gold" doesn't miss any of the big ones, in my opinion.

Surely, all sort of factors should be brought up to this debate, not just the ones you believe play against Abba or in favour of Queen. Anyone, I'm not spinning it. Regardless of any reason, "Gold" is easily the biggest individual 'catalogue title' in the UK, I have no problem to admit that and I'm perfectly happy about it.

Personally, I care more about Queen being the biggest selling 'catalogue band' altogether (always from my own point of view), than about the individual album list (where Queen's compilations are well placed anyway).

Hal, thank you for the nice comment. It took me a while to compile it. The reason? I had always been used to the idea of Queen not being a big catalogue band, because they are either ignored or treated as a minor selling band even in the UK (when it comes to their catalogue sales).

I looked closely at the numbers, and I came up with those totals. From 1984 to 1990, I used some retail sales from Record Mirror. I have some net shipments totals for those yars, which suggest some even higher numbers for those years.

[johnnyboy]

HUR

Spin? Me? No way!

Factors in favour of Gold are of course
- the release of the musical Mamma Mia in 1999 (Queen had their own of course)
- the film version of Mamma Mia in 2008

OK, I should have said this. But you knew I knew this!

You may be right about Queen having sold more than The Beatles even in terms of catalogue sales. I'm not arguing against that. I believe I commented that this would because Queen were able to get 'rock' and 'pop' fans to buy their records.

Queen of course did benefit from the switch from vinyl (and cassette) to CD. I would imagine pre-CD sales of Greatest Hits to be about 2m. As total sales are 5m+, that would mean over 3 million on CD. Even if everybody who bought it on vinyl/cassette bought it again on CD - that would mean there was still 1 million plus new fans.

I would imagine most of the catalogue sales for the studio albums would be by "original" fans buying CD versions. I would imagine "new" fans buy compilations, in the main.

ABBA haven't much catalogue sales - apart from GOLD. An album like Arrival may have sold more than 1.5m when originally released but its sales now would only be about 1.65m. Only about 10% of people who bought it on vinyl/cassette bought it on CD. To be fair, most ABBA studio albums were indeed 'patchy'. It's not until near the end of their career they became more 'serious' album artists.

Regarding Queen and ABBA's compilations, both had their careers from 1974-81, both Queen's Greatest Hits and Gold cover this period. Both acts had a poor 1982 in terms of sales (though ABBA's The Day Before You Came is considered by some a classic now). ABBA stopped. Queen continued. Had ABBA continued I'm sure their career would have become 'patchy' like Queen's had..

You can only be at the top of your game for a few years. Look at artists now who have been around for decades and still recording, say Paul McCartney or the Rolling Stones. They release forgettable garbage now. Queen would be the same if Freddie Mercury was still alive - and so would ABBA.

Finally, the "official" sales of Queen's Greatest Hits are at 5.85m. Excluding TPC this is about 5.25m. But you have shown total sales (including club sales) to be about 5.5m - about the same as ABBA Gold, and if you're just looking at retail sales about 4.6m - less than ABBA Gold.

[zeus555]

Many ABBA Fans think it was right that ABBA 'ended'
in 1982, due to ABBA's, (relatively), poor Chart 'Runs'
that Year.

I find it highly amusing, as Queen had an even worse
1982 than ABBA, & this means, that those ABBA Fans
would have felt it was, 'Time for Queen to split up', too.

ABBA never came back, & Queen came back in 1984 -
to be big again. I'm sure that ABBA would have been
big again, also. It was always a matter of how popular
the Singles were. Queen made the right choice, by
returning, (1984), with 'Radio Ga Ga'.

Had ABBA recorded 'I Know Him So Well', it would
have been just as much a 1985 UK No.1 as it was for
Elaine Paige & Barbara Dickson - neither of whom
had even had a UK Top 5 Hit, until Benny & Bjorn
gave them that Song. It would have been a far, far
bigger Global Hit, in ABBA's hands, too.

Queen & ABBA have several parallels. Both started
having Hits in the first half of 1974. Both had a
terrible 1982. Both have 2 'Hits' Albums as their
UK Best Sellers - and Global Best Sellers.

Both can still enter the UK Album Chart, in the
current Decade, when only a handful of '1970's
Groups' can still do that. Led Zeppelin, ELO, &
The Carpenters, being some of the, (few), others.
(Led Zeppelin having had the vast bulk of their
initial Chart Career, from 1970 onwards).

Zeus555

[johnnyboy]

Zeus555
It is true Queen came back in 1984 with Radio GaGa - one of their best and biggest selling singles.

You're right "I Know You So Well" could have been a big ABBA hit.

However, Queen for the period after 1981 were no way as good as they were between 1974-81. It would have been the same for ABBA. Yes, they could have come back with "I Know Him So Well" but the longer they continued the longer the gap between quality songs until they would eventually dry up.

Paul McCartney has just released a new solo album. Is that as good as his stuff in The Beatles in the 60s? Or Wings in the 70s even? I don't think so!

[HUR]

No problem, Johnny. Yes, I knew you already knew that, of course. I didn't mean that you were spinning it, just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't doing it myself.

In my opinion, there is a further aspect wth the appeal of "Gold". Basically, Abba entered in the CD era comparatively later than other bands, in my opinion. Personally, I think that "Gold", in 1992, introduced Abba to the compact disc era; with both the musical and the film helping them reach an even higher level of success with that compilation, in subsequent years.

I think that Abba also have some good catalogue sales coming from other compilations, and I would imagine that their studio albums, while not strong 'catalogue' items themselves, probably do better than some of their peers' old albums (Boney M, for example).

And I agree with you about the 'rock' and 'pop' notions; like you said, Queen bridged the gap there. Being very simplistic, I think there are three type of bands: pop, rock, and rock/pop bands. The very fact that Queen fall into the last category (to a big extent) is actually one of the reasons why they are generally forgotten.

Pop acts generally have great sales upon release, impressive singles sales, and sell well with their compilations as the years go; whereas rock bands, on the contrary, have some more solid sales coming from their studio albums and, so on. Queen are in the middle: they probably didn't have as many singles sales as some pop bands (and even smaller compilations sales than such groups as Abba); likewise, their studio albums don't sell as much as those of certain rock bands (like Pink Floyd).

Yet they do well on both accounts. Funnily, when I was arguing with another poster not so long ago, who is a straightforward rock fan, he would often claim that Queen's studio albums sales were low and the like; here I'm discussing with you, a big Abba fan, and you raised a point about "Gold" being a bigger seller than Queen's compilations and so on.

In few words, Queen sell more compilations than most rock bands and more studio albums than most pop bands, thus getting a very good cumulative tally altogether, very easy to get overlooked by chart watchers.

Finally, the "official" sales of Queen's Greatest Hits are at 5.85m. Excluding TPC this is about 5.25m. But you have shown total sales (including club sales) to be about 5.5m - about the same as ABBA Gold, and if you're just looking at retail sales about 4.6m - less than ABBA Gold.

The 5.5 million total wasn't arrived at by me, for what it is worth. Jimmypages59 came up with it.

[hengdangnb]

i tkink <<21>> will be the highest!!

[johnnyboy]

..

[jszmiles]

By Dan Lane

Last night (Monday, April 9) Tony Blackburn counted down the Official Charts Company’s Top 40 biggest selling albums of all-time on BBC Radio 2.

The legendary DJ revealed that the UK’s most popular album is Queen’s 1981 Greatest Hits collection, which has more than 5.8 million sales to its name. The British rockers’ 1991 follow-up, Greatest Hits II, which was released in October 1991 - a month before lead singer Freddie Mercury’s death - also made it into the Top 10 (Number 10) with sales of over 3.8 million copies.

The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album, which celebrates its 45th birthday in June, is at Number 2 in the chart with sales of just over 5 million. Abba’s Gold is narrowly behind Sgt. Pepper’s... with sales of 4.9 million, putting it at Number 3, while Oasis’ 1995 sophomore release, (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, is at Number 4 with sales of over 4.5 million.

The Top 5 is completed by Michael Jackson’s 1982 epic, Thriller, which has sold more than 4.2 million copies in the UK. Like Queen, The King of Pop has two albums in the Top 10; 1987’s Bad is at Number 9 with sales of 3.9 million.

Adele’s 2011 mega-selling second album, 21, is still sitting pretty at Number 6 with sales of 4.18 million copies. As previously reported, despite only being on sale for just over a year, 21 has already overtaken classics such as Michael Jackson’s Bad, Dire Straits’ Brothers In Arms (Number 7, with sales of 4.15 million sales) and Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side Of The Moon (Number 8, 4.11 million sales). Now with just 89,000 copies separating 21 and the Number 5 album, Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the London-born singer could move up another place in the biggest selling albums of all-time chart very soon.

Make sure you follow us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest Official Charts news. And remember to log on to www.officialcharts.com – the only place to see the Top 100 Official Albums and Official Singles charts in full every single week.

Here is the Official Charts Company’s Top 40 biggest selling albums of all-time in full: 1 GREATEST HITS (1981) - QUEEN
2 SGT PEPPER’S LONELY HEART’S CLUB BAND (1967) - THE BEATLES
3 GOLD - GREATEST HITS (1992) - ABBA
4 WHAT’S THE STORY MORNING GLORY (1995) - OASIS
5 THRILLER (1982) - MICHAEL JACKSON
6 21 (2011) - ADELE
7 BROTHERS IN ARMS (1985) - DIRE STRAITS
8 THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (1973) - PINK FLOYD
9 BAD (1987) - MICHAEL JACKSON
10 GREATEST HITS II (1991) - QUEEN
11 THE IMMACULATE COLLECTION
12 BACK TO BLACK (2006) - AMY WINEHOUSE
13 STARS - SIMPLY RED
14 RUMOURS (1977) - FLEETWOOD MAC
15 COME ON OVER (1997) - SHANIA TWAIN
16 BACK TO BEDLAM (2005) - JAMES BLUNT
17 URBAN HYMNS (1997) - THE VERVE
18 BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER (1970) - SIMON & GARFUNKEL
19 NO ANGEL (2001) - DIDO
20 SPIRIT (2007) - LEONA LEWIS
21 LEGEND (1984) - BOB MARLEY & THE WAILERS
22 BAT OUT OF HELL (1977) - MEAT LOAF
23 DIRTY DANCING (1987) - ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK
24 1 (2000) - THE BEATLES
25 TALK ON CORNERS (1997) - THE CORRS
26 WHITE LADDER(1998) - DAVID GRAY
27 SPICE - THE SPICE GIRLS
28 CRAZY LOVE (2009) - MICHAEL BUBLÉ
29 LIFE FOR RENT (2003) - DIDO
30 BEAUTIFUL WORLD (2006) - TAKE THAT
31 THE FAME (2008) - LADY GAGA
32 A RUSH OF BLOOD TO THE HEAD (2002) – COLDPLAY
33 HOPES AND FEARS (2004) - KEANE
34 THE JOSHUA TREE (1987) - U2
35 BUT SERIOUSLY (1989) - PHIL COLLINS
36 SCISSOR SISTERS (2004) - SCISSOR SISTERS
37 ONLY BY THE NIGHT (2008) - THE KINGS OF LEON
38 THE WAR OF THE WORLD (1978) - JEFF WAYNE
39 THE MAN WHO (1999) – TRAVIS
40 X&Y (2005) – COLDPLAY