Queen :: Charts & Sales History

[EdWood]

On US Top Pop Catalog Chart

Queen Greatest Hits at number 20(18) - total weeks on combined chart - 690.
This should hopefully be recertified by the RIAA soon as being 9 times platinum - must be selling nearly 6-7,000 a week at that position!

Led Zepellin nowhere to be seen in this chart - (LOL - only joking) Queen are a good selling US catalog band

In Canadian top 100 Albums (national chart)- Queens Greatest Hits is at number 96. Not bad for a 15 year old album! I know this hasnt been certified in years - could possibly be at Diamond Status for 1 million sales?

Opinions anyone?

[EdWood]

About your second point, we don't know how many their studio albums will be selling without all the compilations, well, we know. They will sold nowhere near to Led Zep IV or DSOTM. Queen longest run in the US 200 is ANATO's 56 weeks run, they have never been a strong catalog selling band. In the other side, 4 out of the 5 first Led Zep albums were charted over 90 weeks in the Top 200, Led Zep IV being charted almost 5 years. DSOTM, Appetite for Destruction or Back in Black, Metallica have all been charted years before to drop out the first time, none Queen album have been close to this.
Queen's biggest catalog selling album sold 1m in the Soundscan era, without hits package, I'm dead sure it will not be higher than 2m.

About most of the sales of those albums coming from US, well Led Zep IV sold more out of US alone than Queen's best selling studio album worldwide.

Regarding Queens Catologue sales of Studio albums in the USA - yes probably they do sell less annually then Led Zeppelin. But what I think HUR is talking about is long-tern appeal and longevity.

Its a fact that Queen now depend heaviliy on their Hits Collections to generate 'still huge' sales globally.

For instance, I have shown that there are still, for example, 3 Queen Albums in the Top 100 Argentinian Album charts - even though 1 album is over a quarter of a century old!

They currently have 3 albums in the Canadian Hard Metal Album Charts and I heard that Greatest Hits topped their Top Pop Catalogue chart a few weeks ago - does anyone know where it is at the moment and where this chart can be found?

Queen seem to be one of those bands that are still generating growing respect, after suffering a slump in sales, especially in the USA, where they were not considered a 'cool' rock band, especially after the 'I Want to break Free' video.


Last year, Queen actually outsold Led Zepellin in the US with 993,000 album sales compared to 853,000 for Led Zepellin. Queen are now on 17.751 Million sales in total compared to 20.634 Million for Zepellin. So, really in the their biggest market, Zepellin arent TOO much bigger compared to Queen after 1991 to present and Queen seem to be selling even more now.

Perhaps, with this new Compilation in Walmart - A-Z of Queen - and hopefully with the release of the often rumoured 3-4 set of Anthology Double Discs (similar to the Beatles of 1995-96) Queen may overtake Zepellins total

[cidermaster]

Well similar aurguments take place when comparing great sports stars and teams.

However when polls are done by people who ply the same trade,then they should be taken seriously.

Pro drummers and Guitarists like Pro Tennis and football players must have some knowledge of their subject!

Like i said Polls done by the general Public are often misleading,i remember that big 20th Century most popular band of the UK done in Dec 1999 by channel 4.
Steps finished 16th,for the record Queen finished 1,Beatles 2,Led Zep 15th and Pink Floyd 17th.

Yes Steps 16th!!

Cheers Cidermaster

[jimmypages59]

I find this quite a diificult topic to debate as I love both bands. They are probably my two favourite artists. They both mean so many different things to me, with Zeppelin probably having the slight edge.

I don't really care who is the best musician or who has sold more. I just love both bands music and thats enough for me, sure I enjoy talking about sales and chart facts, but at the end of the day, I'd much rather listen to both bands music than debate who are the best musicians, who has sold the most, who has the best songs.

Anyway I don't know why these debates start, it's a Queen thread, so why are we discussing Led Zeppelin here, why not stick to what the forums about, sales and chart facts. This has just turned into a "I like Queen, so i'm going to big them up" and "Well, I like Led Zeppelin, so i'm going to big them up".

Why not big them both up, but not against each other, both are great bands, but there is really no need to pit them against each other.

[Lawyeris]

I would like to say that I have already picked up several Led zeppelin albums, but iīm not a big fan and the only one I really enjoy lisntening to, is their fourth album. But i know them as a band, and have an idea about how good musicians they are. Yes, I know far more about Queen than them, thatīs true, but I think itīs the same with you and all Led zeppelin fans here.

You are wrong here, I'm sure that if my media player gives me the number of hour that I have heard Queen songs, it is easily higher the number of hours spend listenning to Zep stuff
I think just like you about Queen being underrated. I only can't go with you about their songs being more complex or so than Zep ones, I think you realy have to check more carefully their stuff, just like you have do with Queen songs.

Also, about Queen never being mentionned belong Pink floyd, Led zeppelin, U2 and Metalica, I think that every thing is explained by the fact that they are lacking "the" definitive classic album that everyone have to own.
Led Zep - IV
Floyd - DSOTM
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Metallica - Black Album
Guns N Roses - Appetite For Destruction
AC/DC - Back In Black
etc...
Queen haven't this ultimate album. Of course A Night At The Opera is a classic album, but nowhere near to those albums previously mentionned in the Rock galaxy.
This push their appreciaters (they are a lot, myself included) going by their Hits albums, which is see less "respectful" as if it was a studio album being huge.

Look at Bob Marley, he is never quoted among best solo artists ever, except of course by his fans that see him like a god, just like Queen, he is missing a mythic album.

The fact that Queen MAYBE haven't this wide world recognized ultimate album is just a result of their inappreciation, so this factor doesnt prove anything. Sheer heart attack, ANATO, ADATR (which even better in some terms than ANATO), Innuendo - all are definitive ultimate classics. Otherwise, this Queen's problem - have no ultimate album - seems to be concerned mainly with North America (USA, Canada), which is Achilles heel for Queen's recognition and proper appreciation. In other countries, as lots of polls show us, ANATO is regarded as TOP 3 or 5 album, if not the greatest. Returning to USA, the phenomenon is that despite lack of chart success (they hadn't TOP 40 album for ages), almost every album post The Game is sold near or over 1 000 000 copies, sometimes much more than some TOP 10 charts toppers. So Queen have lots lovers of their music in USA too, just maybe they arent very active fans and Queen's music for them is like wine of high quality - it only makes better in the course of time.

[HUR]

Yes, i didnīt say that led zeppelin werenīt versatil, my point s simply that Queen covered more genres, and were able to combine them into singles songs. Both bands, were great in that regard, but Queen definately more, admit that.

So with more complex songs, averagely, more variety and (in my opinion) far more capable musicians Queen certainly took adventage in many aspects. But i wonīt say that they were a better band or so, or that their albums were better (as you did do in your previous message), mainly because they are very different. But when it comes to their individual musicians Queenīs were more complete and capable, with more skill to make on their own thing that most band couldnīt do.

I understand you, knowing that iīm a Queen fan, you will think that iīm biased or something. But tell me, MJ Dangerous, what other bands had memeber able to achieve such a number of things on their own, without synth or calling guest musicians (as Queen sis it in most cases)?. Remember, they all recorded an operetta section, with only three singers they were able to emulate a big choir and perform those complex arrangements; with "Somebody to love" Freddie wrore, arranged, and performed (with the band); both him and Roger made backing vocales and even female screams; he sang a soprano in the song "The kiss"; they emulated other instruments in songs like "Seaside rendevouz".

And if you go Brianīs guitar skills, them loo how he achieved a "jazz band" in the song "Good company", emulating tubas, piccollos and flautes with his guitar; listen to the opening song of "Queen 2" where the guitar sounds like a trumpet; or "The millionaire waltz" where itīs nearly like a violin, like in the solo of "You take my breath away".

Many of the thing the created as sog-writer were very complex to do on their own, and yet they did it so, achieving those effects with their "naural" vocal and instrumental conditions. Compare "A night at the opera" to "The dark side of the moon" for example: Pink floyd needed an operatic singers, and also sessionist singers to make harmonies and other vocal arrangements, the called several orquestral arrangers, they put synth, and many other things, but in Queen nearly everythig was done by the four of them (female srea, harmonies, effects or other instruments achieve by the guitar or other ones). Whatīs more, take a pop song like "Learning to fly", and its gospel vocal arrangements, the band had to call guest musiciand to make them, but Queen performed on their own.

What other bands were as complete in these things?. Not many, certainly not Led zeppelin or Pink floyd or many of the most famous.

About their studio albums, well you could be right, but my point is without all those compilations they would have probably sold more (yes 2 million for "A nighta the opera", but many more for the other, the gran total would much the same). And if Led zeppelin had released huge compilations at that time, that would have probably dropped the sales of their studio albums, we just donīt know that. But if talk about facts, itīs quite clear that in recent year Queen made a bigger impact in the three countries mentioned, and surely in other countries.

[MJDangerous]

Nick, youīre right about this topic being about sales. I just can say sorry guys, but I donīt like when other fans come here with the same stupid arguments to talk about other bands. Read what Cidermaster said, he bases his arguments by saying that Led zeppelinīs musicians are better just because polls say so.

MJ Dangerous, I agree in some point. I know that you love both bands, but believe, itīs not only me who says that Queen were far more complex, regarding harmonies and structure, but also many people that have done more analysis than me. Led zeppelin used, in most songs, the pentatonic scale, itīs difficult for me to explain that because english is not my native languaje, and I donīt rule enogh weapons to explain it deeply. But to put it short, it means that Led zeppelin songs were based mainly on few chords (no more than 5 or so). Queen, on the other hand, employed in many time more intrincated harmonies, with more chords. Take "Bohemian rhapsody", nearly 60 chords for what i remember, "Bicycle race" with more than 20. their structure were more acyclic. Queen made far more genres, like rock, hard rock, heavy metal, prog. rock, art rock, operetta, gospel, waltz, vaudeville, pop, jazz, blues, synth-pop, flamenco, skiffle, dixieland, as they had enogh weapon to cover them (as i explained with "We are the champions", a song that uses many of the jazz chords).

Itīs a shame that none of their studio album became a real cult for the young buyers, but thatīs in part because their compilations started having success from the beginning, as it happened with their Greatest hits. With Led zeppelin and Pink floyd, well both bands had massive compilation, but that was after many years with their albums on their stores whick made the be a cult.

As I have already said, we simply donīt know how much their studio albums would sell if they didnīt release those compilations. Do you understann my point?. But if you go to the facts, you get that, even with many compilations, since 2002 Queen sold more than those bands, which is very important. And to be fair, a big proportion of the success scored by those studio albums are due to their big sales in USA.

About the first out of the 3 parts on your message, yes Queen made many different kinds of music etc... But Led Zep was not in rest. You talk as if the band made only strict hard rock all over their career. At the beginning of course this was the case, and their 4 first albums were released within 2 years, with reduce a lot possibilities of variety, they were recorded with the same spirit. After that, they released only 4 albums, against 15 albums over 18 years for Queen, this is obvious that they got more time to search various directions for their music.
Zep's Physical Graffiti songs alone countains many kinds of music, hard rock, jazz, blues, funk, pop, heavy metal etc... With a lot of experimentations. You are strongly negliging this fact. Led Zep were not only a basic hard rock band.

About your second point, we don't know how many their studio albums will be selling without all the compilations, well, we know. They will sold nowhere near to Led Zep IV or DSOTM. Queen longest run in the US 200 is ANATO's 56 weeks run, they have never been a strong catalog selling band. In the other side, 4 out of the 5 first Led Zep albums were charted over 90 weeks in the Top 200, Led Zep IV being charted almost 5 years. DSOTM, Appetite for Destruction or Back in Black, Metallica have all been charted years before to drop out the first time, none Queen album have been close to this.
Queen's biggest catalog selling album sold 1m in the Soundscan era, without hits package, I'm dead sure it will not be higher than 2m.

About most of the sales of those albums coming from US, well Led Zep IV sold more out of US alone than Queen's best selling studio album worldwide.

[Classicrock]

They also made a bigger impact in UK than Led zeppelin, and also in most european countries (Netherlands, switzeralnd, austria, germany, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, and such), and also Japan, Argentina, Korea, New Zealand, Australia and many. Most of the world.

They also sold more records than led zeppelin.

And their songs are more widely regarded by the general public, yet they are far more complex, regarding harmony and structure, and still listeneable. "bohemian rhapsody" has nearly 60 chords If iīm not wrong. A very complex piece, that sounds as catchy and listeneable as a pop song, but itīs more complex that most of prog. rock and everything ever made by Led zeppelin.

Queen in UK a resounding Yes
Queen in Germany a resouding yes
Queen in New Zealand and Australia I dont know neither do you since NZ especially is sketchy. Australia based on certifications is difficult to gauge
Queen in Japan yes but only Jewels stands out in terms of sales.The rest pretty similar to Zeppelin figures so yes they are big in Japan even bigger than Zeppelin but they aint no Abba or Madonna over there either
Queen in Brazil; Again I dont know because Brazil is a very hard market to measure>Every concert there is
attending well so that is not a gauge
Queen in USA and Canada: a resounding NO

The Song remains the same and self-titled DVD stand up if pretty well to Queens two top selling concert dvds as well

So what is self-evident to you is obscure to me

As for talent well if you ask someone in Canada and USA it is Zeppelin hands down but if you ask someone in UK almost certainly be Queen
BTW Page produced wrote and played acoustic numbers as well so I dont understand your argument

I think Queen were hugely successful in Japan - at least as successful as Abba!
Queen Jewels (which has sold over 1.5 million in Japan alone) is not the only big selling Queen album in that country.

When Jewels was released I can remember that there were 13 (!) other Queen albums that charted in the Japanese top 20 album chart and all 27 albums were in the top 200 chart! They were released in special edition packaging.

The problem with Queen's Japanese sales is that they have never been certified correctly. They released their first album there over 32 years ago!

They were huge from 'A Night At The Opera' onwards and 'A Day At The Races got to number 1!
The figures for sales given by Oricon are only for when the albums are actually on the chart so i think these are very low compared to what they actually will have sold.

I estimate Queen's total Japanese album sales at 15 million plus. Remember, 15 studio albums, numerous live releases and huge selling greatest hits albums.

As HUR correctly says, they sold over 1.78 million in 2004 alone so surely they are one of the most successful International Album acts in Japan of all time!

15 million in Japan then Oricon is totally useless as a gauge. I guess Zeppelin IV then sold more than 150 thousand?

[Classicrock]

Counting their sales since 2002 from USA, Japan, and UK, they have sold 7,700,000 (and with 2002 and 2003 missing for USA and japan too, and 2004). I reckon they have sold 10 M in these three countries in the last few years, and probably abot 16 or 17 wordwide. They have had the ebst selling internationbal albums in Italy between 2002 and 2003, the biggest catalog seller in France during 2003, and a number one album in Soth africa, Korea and Taiwan in recent years. Look at download sales: over 2 M digital sales in USA with only three songs (as you posted here in the forum), and a song that was certified 2 platinum in Japan for 500,000.
.

I agree entirely with this HUR.
As regards Canadian sales, yes I agree Queen never had a HUGE selling studio album such as Led Zeppelin 4, although i did hear that 'The Game' was certified for 5 times platinum not long after its release which was 500,000 - not bad!
I think in Canada, like the US, Queen were big for a number of years - 1974-1982 and then came huge again in 1992.

Since I live in Canada I would say that next to the the Beatles Zeppelin are the biggest selling group( This was confirmed in 1995)though Celin Dion may have surpassed them since it is difficult to say
The margin between Queen and Led Zeppelin is so huge I will not bother arguing about it anymore.I would say for every one thousand Led Zeppelin Tshirst I see i may see one Queen Tshirt.If you listen to Q107 in Toronto then you will understand.Queen is a second-tier band in terms of popularity here so spare me.The ratio has diminshed,though, to say 500 tshirts to 1 with the "We Will Rock You" show

[HUR]

Nick, youīre right about this topic being about sales. I just can say sorry guys, but I donīt like when other fans come here with the same stupid arguments to talk about other bands. Read what Cidermaster said, he bases his arguments by saying that Led zeppelinīs musicians are better just because polls say so.

MJ Dangerous, I agree in some point. I know that you love both bands, but believe, itīs not only me who says that Queen were far more complex, regarding harmonies and structure, but also many people that have done more analysis than me. Led zeppelin used, in most songs, the pentatonic scale, itīs difficult for me to explain that because english is not my native languaje, and I donīt rule enogh weapons to explain it deeply. But to put it short, it means that Led zeppelin songs were based mainly on few chords (no more than 5 or so). Queen, on the other hand, employed in many time more intrincated harmonies, with more chords. Take "Bohemian rhapsody", nearly 60 chords for what i remember, "Bicycle race" with more than 20. their structure were more acyclic. Queen made far more genres, like rock, hard rock, heavy metal, prog. rock, art rock, operetta, gospel, waltz, vaudeville, pop, jazz, blues, synth-pop, flamenco, skiffle, dixieland, as they had enogh weapon to cover them (as i explained with "We are the champions", a song that uses many of the jazz chords).

Itīs a shame that none of their studio album became a real cult for the young buyers, but thatīs in part because their compilations started having success from the beginning, as it happened with their Greatest hits. With Led zeppelin and Pink floyd, well both bands had massive compilation, but that was after many years with their albums on their stores whick made the be a cult.

As I have already said, we simply donīt know how much their studio albums would sell if they didnīt release those compilations. Do you understann my point?. But if you go to the facts, you get that, even with many compilations, since 2002 Queen sold more than those bands, which is very important. And to be fair, a big proportion of the success scored by those studio albums are due to their big sales in USA.

[MJDangerous]

I agree entirely with this HUR.
As regards Canadian sales, yes I agree Queen never had a HUGE selling studio album such as Led Zeppelin 4, although i did hear that 'The Game' was certified for 5 times platinum not long after its release which was 500,000 - not bad!

Yes, it was, 5 weeks #1 and 23 charted. With News Of The World it is their most successful studio album in North America, 5m albums sold each.

[EdWood]

Counting their sales since 2002 from USA, Japan, and UK, they have sold 7,700,000 (and with 2002 and 2003 missing for USA and japan too, and 2004). I reckon they have sold 10 M in these three countries in the last few years, and probably abot 16 or 17 wordwide. They have had the ebst selling internationbal albums in Italy between 2002 and 2003, the biggest catalog seller in France during 2003, and a number one album in Soth africa, Korea and Taiwan in recent years. Look at download sales: over 2 M digital sales in USA with only three songs (as you posted here in the forum), and a song that was certified 2 platinum in Japan for 500,000.
.

I agree entirely with this HUR.
As regards Canadian sales, yes I agree Queen never had a HUGE selling studio album such as Led Zeppelin 4, although i did hear that 'The Game' was certified for 5 times platinum not long after its release which was 500,000 - not bad!
I think in Canada, like the US, Queen were big for a number of years - 1974-1982 and then came huge again in 1992. Classic Queen and Greatest Hits are still huge catalog sellers - in another post i showed there were still 3 Queen albums in Top Metal Chart!
So, as regards their greatest hits collections in Canada I think they are miles ahead of Led Zeppelin!

Their European sales are huge compared to Led Zeppelins - nearly 50 million more!

Queen even sold more albums last year in the US then Led Zeppelin did - so I think in Longevity worldwide Queen will predominate and eventually pass Led Zeppelin's total worldwide album sales - if they havent done so already

[braca]

As we weave this web, what a waste of a nice sunday
As I recall this is a Queen sales thread so excuse me if I ask you all to start a new thread debating who of the 2 has got the biggest *ock!
Cidermaster and jrh06 you started on http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.p ... s&start=25 and for some unexplainable reason feel the need to continue here and turn this into a pissing contest!
sorry guys but it really bores the pants of me!
call the thread Emotions - you all seem to have plenty of it!
Sorry for being so blunt!

[MJDangerous]

I have listen to really a lot of artists in no time, over 15,000 albums in my hard disk, I listenned to all of them at least 1 time, and I have to say that Queen is very often hugely underrated, but to say that they challenge the talent of Led Zeppelin is a bit to much.

Well everybody has its own opinion and perception of a band, band apreciation is a personal feeling; you can give me hundreds of musical & technical arguments, I will still tell you that led zep is a minor band for me

and I think your last sentence is a little bit presumptuous

You can very well be right. I have say this as someone that try to be objective, as I'm a fan of none of those two bands, but loving them both a lot. But of course, this still nothing more than my opinion and I don't pretend this sentence to be more than that.

Both bands are 'disbanded' for a long time now, and they still selling a hell of records, both bands are massive in every aspect, which is what matter really.

[MJDangerous]

I would like to say that I have already picked up several Led zeppelin albums, but iīm not a big fan and the only one I really enjoy lisntening to, is their fourth album. But i know them as a band, and have an idea about how good musicians they are. Yes, I know far more about Queen than them, thatīs true, but I think itīs the same with you and all Led zeppelin fans here.

You are wrong here, I'm sure that if my media player gives me the number of hour that I have heard Queen songs, it is easily higher the number of hours spend listenning to Zep stuff

I think just like you about Queen being underrated. I only can't go with you about their songs being more complex or so than Zep ones, I think you realy have to check more carefully their stuff, just like you have do with Queen songs.

Also, about Queen never being mentionned belong Pink floyd, Led zeppelin, U2 and Metalica, I think that every thing is explained by the fact that they are lacking "the" definitive classic album that everyone have to own.
Led Zep - IV
Floyd - DSOTM
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Metallica - Black Album
Guns N Roses - Appetite For Destruction
AC/DC - Back In Black

etc...

Queen haven't this ultimate album. Of course A Night At The Opera is a classic album, but nowhere near to those albums previously mentionned in the Rock galaxy.
This push their appreciaters (they are a lot, myself included) going by their Hits albums, which is see less "respectful" as if it was a studio album being huge.

Look at Bob Marley, he is never quoted among best solo artists ever, except of course by his fans that see him like a god, just like Queen, he is missing a mythic album.

[john2000]

I have listen to really a lot of artists in no time, over 15,000 albums in my hard disk, I listenned to all of them at least 1 time, and I have to say that Queen is very often hugely underrated, but to say that they challenge the talent of Led Zeppelin is a bit to much.

Well everybody has its own opinion and perception of a band, band apreciation is a personal feeling; you can give me hundreds of musical & technical arguments, I will still tell you that led zep is a minor band for me

and I think your last sentence is a little bit presumptuous

[HUR]

Hello MJ Dangerous. I also appreciate your posts here, no problem with your comment.

I would like to say that I have already picked up several Led zeppelin albums, but iīm not a big fan and the only one I really enjoy lisntening to, is their fourth album. But i know them as a band, and have an idea about how good musicians they are. Yes, I know far more about Queen than them, thatīs true, but I think itīs the same with you and all Led zeppelin fans here.

Itīs nothing against you, but I ussually read all the messages posted here, and Queen are a very underrated band, specially regarding the quality of their albums as whole peices of art. And also as a huge band, if you go to most debates here, you will see how most people, when they talk about best selling bands or biggest catalog sellers, always talk about Pink floyd, Led zeppelin, U2, Metalica and many others but never about Queen. So I ask why?.

Counting their sales since 2002 from USA, Japan, and UK, they have sold 7,700,000 (and with 2002 and 2003 missing for USA and japan too, and 2004). I reckon they have sold 10 M in these three countries in the last few years, and probably abot 16 or 17 wordwide. They have had the ebst selling internationbal albums in Italy between 2002 and 2003, the biggest catalog seller in France during 2003, and a number one album in Soth africa, Korea and Taiwan in recent years. Look at download sales: over 2 M digital sales in USA with only three songs (as you posted here in the forum), and a song that was certified 2 platinum in Japan for 500,000.

Do you any other classic band that has done that in recent years, after the Beatles and U2 and maybe Pink floyd?.

About your comments on their quality, yes, "We are the champios" is more complex than everything ever made by Led zeppelin, at least as far as I know. Thta song employs many of the jazzy chords (mayor and minor 7th, 9th and such). The jazz is a far complex genre than rock or pop, which doesnīt mean better. And tell me, does "We are the champions" sound as jazz song?. Of course, no. It had the typical rock structure, combine with these harmonies, and some nearly peratic vocal arrangements. Freddie is about the only musician that combined in that way parts of different genres into single track. Take "Bohemian rhapsody" (ballad, operetta, and hard rock) or "Innuendo" (hard rock parts, with orquestral arrangements and flamenco). And all these were huge hits, two number one in UK, and another in North America. Do you know any other band that has some such a number of complex hits, and yet able to make them sound pop as Queen did?. I have yet to find any other, and believe that iīm not talking as fan.

And yes, Queenīs musicians were far more complete and capable, certainly more skillful to make things on their own where most band needed to put synths and call guest musicians. they were all great song-writer, all of the made international number one singles, they were all producers, and they had three singers. Queen are not betther than led zeppelin, and led zeppelin arenīt better either, but their individual musicians were far more complete.

[MJDangerous]

yes, queen was a far more commercial band than Led zeppelin, but is that a deffect?. Queen made songs with far more complex and elaborated arrangements, more production than Led Zeppelin, and yet their songs are more easy-listening. You want people to think that is something negative but, on the contrary, thatīs brilliant. What other bands have been able to make songs as complex as "Killer queen", "Bohemian rhapsody", "Somebody to love", "We are the champons", "Innuendo" and many others, and still so listeneables as these ones.

On the other hand, you say that Led Zeppelin musicians are better than Queenīs. Thatīs a joke. Letīs make a comparisson:

Freddie and Robert Plant

Freddie is definately a more complete singers, both are close in my opinion, but Fredie made things that no other popular singer has been able to make he made operatic arrangements; gospell; he emulated several instruments with his voice; he sang as a soprano singer in the song "The kiss"; he performed a "bolero" (listen "the great pretender), and he wrote, arranged, performed and produced an opera album (listen to "Barcelona" from 1988)

He made a symphonic movement, where the main motif was written and arranged by him (as I have said, listen to the "The kiss") and based on this the arranger Howard Blake made the rest of the song.

Brian and Jimmy Page

Both good guitarrists, but neither of them were a virtuoso in this regerd (they are not even close to, say, Slash or steve Vai), but yet Brian was far better, with more conditions and able to emulate other instruments with his guitar as he did it in "Procession", "good company" or "The millionaire waltz" where the guitar sounded as violin.

He was a better song-writer and arranger, and he made thing that Jimmy Page was not able to do. He awsa also producer, and he composed, arranged and performed (he played acustic and electric guitar, he sang, made backing vocals and such, besides playing piano. He far more capable, no doubt about it.

Roger and John Bonham

Well John Bonham was a better drummer, thatīs true, but as a general artist Roger was far better. He was song-writer and arranger and made several number one hits ("Radio ga-ga" and "A akind of magic"), he was producer and also singers (he made lead vocals, backing vocals, harmonies, and scream). He could play drums and sing at the same time.

John and John Paul Jones

Well, yet again they were close as bassist. But Queenīs bass lines were far more complex, as you can see in songs like "The millionaire waltz", "The fairy feller master stroke" or "the hitman". He also palyed guitar and piano, and was a great composer and arranger, certainli better.

So I canīt say that Queen were better, they were both very different. But Queen musicians were far better and complete than Led zeppelin. They were all song-writer, arranger, performers, producers, they had three singers and were able to do on their own things that other bands couldnīt.

And yes, itīs quite clear that Queen sold more records than Led Zeppelin counting singles, videos and albums in my opinion.

I want to react on this - That's not a critic against you HUR, I appreciated your participation here a lot, this is important to me to point out this initialy.

My opinion is that your comments are strongly misleading by the fact that you know much more about Queen than about Led Zeppelin. When you say for example that Queenīs bass lines were far more complex, as you can see in songs like "The millionaire waltz", "The fairy feller master stroke" or "the hitman" the only thing that come to my mind is that you have not check Zep stuff as well as Queen stuff. "In My Time Of Dying" to give an example is as complex as the most complex Queen songs.


Queen's members were all very strong, they were all complete artists as well, but to say that they were better musicians than Zep ones is not true. Is We Are The Champions THAT complex in regard to Moby Dick or Stairway To Heaven ? I really don't think so. Zep' songs are also as listennable as Queen one's, if they sold so many records (Led Zep IV for example, a studio albums, sold more than every Queen record, even compilations) it's because their songs are strongly listennable.

About studio albums, yes A Night At the Opera or Jazz are very good albums, but when you say pick up their albums, they are as good as the ones made by Led zeppelin I want to answer pick up Zep albums, to see that even if Queen albums are strong they don't came close to Zep ones.

I have listen to really a lot of artists in no time, over 15,000 albums in my hard disk, I listenned to all of them at least 1 time, and I have to say that Queen is very often hugely underrated, but to say that they challenge the talent of Led Zeppelin is a bit to much.

[cidermaster]

Yes Polls done by the Public can be misleading,but when they are done by fellow musicians then surely they can be taken far more seriously.

So think on HUR,countless Guitar Magazines and Polls done by pro Guitarists all putting Page ahead,and mostly way ahead.

By your logic if we were talking tennis you would be saying Jimmy Conners is the best ever Tennis player,and i would be saying Bjorn Borg,and all the Polls by fellow players would agree.You see HUR you are entitled to your opinion,and others are entitled to facts.

Cheers Cidermaster

PS Do you know how underecorded Zep's sales are? They have sold countless millions in Japan.

As for Canada Zep have easily sold more than Queen,easily more.The Four Symbols alone has sold more than the 3 best selling Queen Studio Albums put together.

[EdWood]

They also made a bigger impact in UK than Led zeppelin, and also in most european countries (Netherlands, switzeralnd, austria, germany, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, and such), and also Japan, Argentina, Korea, New Zealand, Australia and many. Most of the world.

They also sold more records than led zeppelin.

And their songs are more widely regarded by the general public, yet they are far more complex, regarding harmony and structure, and still listeneable. "bohemian rhapsody" has nearly 60 chords If iīm not wrong. A very complex piece, that sounds as catchy and listeneable as a pop song, but itīs more complex that most of prog. rock and everything ever made by Led zeppelin.

Queen in UK a resounding Yes
Queen in Germany a resouding yes
Queen in New Zealand and Australia I dont know neither do you since NZ especially is sketchy. Australia based on certifications is difficult to gauge
Queen in Japan yes but only Jewels stands out in terms of sales.The rest pretty similar to Zeppelin figures so yes they are big in Japan even bigger than Zeppelin but they aint no Abba or Madonna over there either
Queen in Brazil; Again I dont know because Brazil is a very hard market to measure>Every concert there is
attending well so that is not a gauge
Queen in USA and Canada: a resounding NO

The Song remains the same and self-titled DVD stand up if pretty well to Queens two top selling concert dvds as well

So what is self-evident to you is obscure to me

As for talent well if you ask someone in Canada and USA it is Zeppelin hands down but if you ask someone in UK almost certainly be Queen
BTW Page produced wrote and played acoustic numbers as well so I dont understand your argument

I think Queen were hugely successful in Japan - at least as successful as Abba!
Queen Jewels (which has sold over 1.5 million in Japan alone) is not the only big selling Queen album in that country.

When Jewels was released I can remember that there were 13 (!) other Queen albums that charted in the Japanese top 20 album chart and all 27 albums were in the top 200 chart! They were released in special edition packaging.

The problem with Queen's Japanese sales is that they have never been certified correctly. They released their first album there over 32 years ago!

They were huge from 'A Night At The Opera' onwards and 'A Day At The Races got to number 1!
The figures for sales given by Oricon are only for when the albums are actually on the chart so i think these are very low compared to what they actually will have sold.

I estimate Queen's total Japanese album sales at 15 million plus. Remember, 15 studio albums, numerous live releases and huge selling greatest hits albums.

As HUR correctly says, they sold over 1.78 million in 2004 alone so surely they are one of the most successful International Album acts in Japan of all time!

[HUR]

Well one important fact is the Jimmy Page finishs above Brian May in all the important Guitar Polls both sides of the Atlantic(usually by a mile)

Infact several times Page has been voted greatest living Guitarist.

These are polls by the public and fellow Guitarists.

The same applies to John Bonham...............

Not being funny but i have known and know countless Rock fans in UK,most have rated Zep higher as musicians.

Cheers Cidermaster

PS Have Queen done a better Studio Album than Four Symbols or Physical Graffiti or Led Zep 2 or Led Zep 1,i doubt it. Maybe they matched Led Zep 3.

Also have Queen matched How The West Was Won as a live album,i doubt it.

But like i said Queen are a great Rock band,but Zep are greater in influence and talent as musicians.

Also they did not need the media.

Having said that i wish Zep had released singles in UK and been just a bit more Media friendly.

However the way they did not need the media was a one off,a sensational one off.

Cheers Cidermaster

I donīt care what polls say, Cidermaster. Understan that they are ussually made by ignorants who donīt know anything. For example, several polls have been saying that Queen at the live aid in 1985 is the best live moment by a group. So will you seriously believe that just because polls say that?. "Bohemian rhapsody" is probably the best song on popular music, but is that because most polls have said that?. No, certainly no. Itīs probably the best song because the way it combines timbres, colours and structures from different genres into a single piece, due to its production and such. You need to base your argument.

And Queenīs musicians are far more complete than Led zeppelinīs as I have already shown.

I donīt why people donīt want to recongnize the status of Queen as a big album. Have you ever listened to "A night at the opera", "Jazz", "Innuendo", pick up their albums, they are as good as the ones made by Led zeppelin.

[HUR]

They also made a bigger impact in UK than Led zeppelin, and also in most european countries (Netherlands, switzeralnd, austria, germany, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, and such), and also Japan, Argentina, Korea, New Zealand, Australia and many. Most of the world.

They also sold more records than led zeppelin.

And their songs are more widely regarded by the general public, yet they are far more complex, regarding harmony and structure, and still listeneable. "bohemian rhapsody" has nearly 60 chords If iīm not wrong. A very complex piece, that sounds as catchy and listeneable as a pop song, but itīs more complex that most of prog. rock and everything ever made by Led zeppelin.

Queen in UK a resounding Yes
Queen in Germany a resouding yes
Queen in New Zealand and Australia I dont know neither do you since NZ especially is sketchy. Australia based on certifications is difficult to gauge
Queen in Japan yes but only Jewels stands out in terms of sales.The rest pretty similar to Zeppelin figures so yes they are big in Japan even bigger than Zeppelin but they aint no Abba or Madonna over there either
Queen in Brazil; Again I dont know because Brazil is a very hard market to measure>Every concert there is
attending well so that is not a gauge
Queen in USA and Canada: a resounding NO

The Song remains the same and self-titled DVD stand up if pretty well to Queens two top selling concert dvds as well

So what is self-evident to you is obscure to me

As for talent well if you ask someone in Canada and USA it is Zeppelin hands down but if you ask someone in UK almost certainly be Queen
BTW Page produced wrote and played acoustic numbers as well so I dont understand your argument

Hello Classicrock.
First of all, I have to say that I have nothing against Led Zeppelin. Itīs just the fact that I donīt like the you, guys, always come up with the same in every topic always talking about Led zeppelin even in debates that arenīt releted like this. Itīs always the same, read what that guy said. That has nothing to do with this.

Itīs not only UK and Germany, itīs same in most of european countries that we have information where Queen were or seem to have been bigger. In Japan their studio albums sold more too, and with their "Queen jewels" added to them, they are well ahead in my opinion. The same goes to places like Argentina, Korea, and maybe most asian countries too.

But well, you may argue that I donīt have any proof. I ask you the same about Canada, where is your proof about Led zeppelin being bigger than Queen, when neither of them have a catalog properly updated?.

You say that both led zeppelin DVDīs come close to the ones released by Queen, yes, thatīs right, but Queen released more DVDīs and sold more, jus like they did in Europe and many countries.

I know that Jummy Page waa a great artist, but my point is that Brian was far more capable and complete. He made more compex songs. He made things that the other certainly couldnīt. He was a great singer and more versatil, thatīs why I say he is better. And the same for the othe members if you make an individual comparisson.

[cidermaster]

Well one important fact is the Jimmy Page finishs above Brian May in all the important Guitar Polls both sides of the Atlantic(usually by a mile)

Infact several times Page has been voted greatest living Guitarist.

These are polls by the public and fellow Guitarists.

The same applies to John Bonham...............

Not being funny but i have known and know countless Rock fans in UK,most have rated Zep higher as musicians.

Cheers Cidermaster

PS Have Queen done a better Studio Album than Four Symbols or Physical Graffiti or Led Zep 2 or Led Zep 1,i doubt it. Maybe they matched Led Zep 3.

Also have Queen matched How The West Was Won as a live album,i doubt it.

But like i said Queen are a great Rock band,but Zep are greater in influence and talent as musicians.

Also they did not need the media.

Having said that i wish Zep had released singles in UK and been just a bit more Media friendly.

However the way they did not need the media was a one off,a sensational one off.

Cheers Cidermaster

[Classicrock]

They also made a bigger impact in UK than Led zeppelin, and also in most european countries (Netherlands, switzeralnd, austria, germany, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, and such), and also Japan, Argentina, Korea, New Zealand, Australia and many. Most of the world.

They also sold more records than led zeppelin.

And their songs are more widely regarded by the general public, yet they are far more complex, regarding harmony and structure, and still listeneable. "bohemian rhapsody" has nearly 60 chords If iīm not wrong. A very complex piece, that sounds as catchy and listeneable as a pop song, but itīs more complex that most of prog. rock and everything ever made by Led zeppelin.

Queen in UK a resounding Yes
Queen in Germany a resouding yes
Queen in New Zealand and Australia I dont know neither do you since NZ especially is sketchy. Australia based on certifications is difficult to gauge
Queen in Japan yes but only Jewels stands out in terms of sales.The rest pretty similar to Zeppelin figures so yes they are big in Japan even bigger than Zeppelin but they aint no Abba or Madonna over there either
Queen in Brazil; Again I dont know because Brazil is a very hard market to measure>Every concert there is
attending well so that is not a gauge
Queen in USA and Canada: a resounding NO

The Song remains the same and self-titled DVD stand up if pretty well to Queens two top selling concert dvds as well

So what is self-evident to you is obscure to me

As for talent well if you ask someone in Canada and USA it is Zeppelin hands down but if you ask someone in UK almost certainly be Queen
BTW Page produced wrote and played acoustic numbers as well so I dont understand your argument

[nucleardolphin]

Hi, thanks for your thread it makes fascinating reading and Im a big Queen fan as well as having an obsession with record sales. How many albums globally do you think they have sold. There was an article realised by the Times about 3 years ago that said Queen had sold an incredibly 300 million records, more than any other act on EMI other than The Beatles. Also how many records do you think Queen sell each year, apparently they have one of the most lucrative back catalogues in the industry but no figures that I know of have been released. MJdangerous's thread says they have sold 77 million in Europe, 32.5 in the states, thats 110 million plus the others? Cheers, ND