Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Queen :: Charts & Sales History

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Topicel
    replied
    They don't want to know. Or haven't you seen the comments section when queries are raised ;)

    Chart analysis is what we are here for, and on here Queen specific. Just read lists of numbers if that is what you prefer with no engagement of brain, but I suspect you are actually more interested in the subject than that really.

    Anyway, Jimmypages59 seemed to find it easy enough to follow my logic and agreed in principle with what I'm pointing out. Even added another album that looked suspect. As Chartmasters keeps getting the big write up and links it just seems apt to ask some thoughtful questions to those on here who might be involved. Hence HUR.

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Rockintunesbaby
    replied
    Dude go and talk to chartmasters about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Oh well, never mind. My musings are clearly flying over the top of most people's head. Basically Chartmasters can write what they like about historical album sales and that's that...

    But I'll muse on.

    I mentioned inconsistencies, and by that I was referring to the way unexplained estimate differences crop up all over the place on Chartmasters when none, or not much, should exist. So for the debut 'Queen' album I'll go back and use a Deep Purple LP to explain what I mean as I know JP59 will have more than a passing interest and understanding of their canon. Maybe he worked on their Chartmasters figures?

    I've mentioned how 'Queen' came out in July 1973 but didn't chart until March 1974 and didn't peak at No. 24 until early 1976 when 'Bho Rhap' was triggering interest in everything by the band, racking up 18 wks all told. It made gold in May 1976 on what was then about 120k shipments, possibly a little less, and as we've seen Chartmasters have settled on an all-time sale of the album of 600k in Britain.

    Now in March 1974 'Burn' by Deep Purple made the UK Top 50 albums and peaked at No. 3 with 21 wks of residency, going gold on 1st July 1974, similarly in the 120k region. Now it probably added reasonably to that amount in the rest of the 70s, but my guess is as good as anyone's how much, maybe getting to 175k?

    We have the shop-only data from JP59 (presumably because the band didn't go to clubs?), circa 38k from 1992-2006. So being generous we could say 50k from 1990, and a running tally of 225k, leaving us to wonder at the 80s. Chartmasters would have us believe the total is 315k, so that implies we are looking at 90k for the 80s. I'd find it hard to credit based on the yearly average of the 90s and post chart run periods, but it could be ok as it was discounted back then.

    The problem I have is apart from an advantage of around 80k shop bought sales between these Queen and Purple albums from 1992-2006, all the early advantages are with 'Burn'. So they should even themselves out in time. Is 'Burn' as keenly loved as 'Queen' by casual rock fans through the years? Because they are really the only ones likely to be buying them. I have no idea but this is a cold hard example of the inconsistent Chartmasters estimates to which I refer. One ends up with nearly double the other with no rhyme nor reason! Go figure, as our Yank cousins would say.

    A fair system that takes into all other artists and accounts for them in the same way? Mmmm, maybe...

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Rockintunesbaby
    replied
    Originally posted by Topicel View Post

    To elaborate a little on what JP59 is saying about 'Sheer Heart Attack' being too high on 805k at Chartmasters, we can as he says subtract the 110k pretty much nailed on company to retailer/distributor sales of 110k from 1992-2006 bringing the tally down to 695k from the album's November 1974 release until mid-1992.

    So Chartmasters is saying that was what it sold over 18 years. Of course it received a platinum award as he's highlighted during 1982 (7th June to be precise) which was for a minimum shipment of 300k. This means, as JP59 says, approx 400k (395k doing the subtraction from 695k) are deemed to have been sold in the 10 years to 1992. There aren't many catalogue albums that can sell a third more in the fallow years of the 80s than they actually managed in their chart peak period. It does look bad for the method, doesn't it?

    However, it should also not escape people's attention that the award is for a shipment, not actually bought sales as the OCC would count these days, and it could be the 300,000th copy wasn't bought until 1983/84 in retail terms. As long as that is understood then we have to equally balance the possible ledger with the observation that the platinum award could have been somewhat belated. I would be prepared to consider it other than the inconvenient fact that the award coincided with the release of 'Hot Space' and an opportunity for EMI to off-load back catalogue items into the distribution chain ready to benefit from casual purchases along with the new album. They get sold or come back within the next six months or so, that's how it works folks!

    Now personally I would still err on the side of caution and consider the platinum award had been overlooked and that it was noticed when any additional shipments alongside 'Hot Space' were sent out. Something along the lines of an internal memo saying:

    "Hey marketing and publicity department, we're just getting our reps to push Queen back catalogue on the back of the new 'Hot Space' release and noticed that the additional 10k (for instance) we're distributing of 'Sheer Heart Attack' has taken it close to 400k and we missed the chance for platinum some while back. Please apply to the BPI now".

    The reasoning for my hesitancy are the BMRB Top 100 placings of No. 91 in 1974 (from a curtailed/restricted run); No. 39 in 1975 and No. 59 in 1976. That little lot would indicate 400k was more likely in the summer of 1982.

    If it helps Chartmasters is doubtful as we still have them estimating a UK sale of now 'just' 295k from 82-92. Shall we say (on good authority) it was ticking over at a generous 15k a year at retail, then we could bring the 'missing' total down to 145k. Add in a burst of 25k from Freddie's passing and Chartmasters seem to be 120k too high - a 15% discrepancy. I would add little for post-2006 as the data suggests the price reductions in 2005 brought more than enough product into the marketplace. If anything, returns would be possible.

    Of course the discrepancy will be answered by the age-old cry of 'club sales'...and if it is, then we'll have a look at consistency more closely... ;)

    Sorry to step on your toes JP59, I just felt like explaining what you were driving at.

    Topicel
    I think Queen are doing well. They are smashing it in the streaming era but were always a perennial seller well before the movie. Please read the link. Thanks

    https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...llion-dollars/

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmypages59 View Post
    To be honest, I've never looked at the Queen article in much scrutiny but I agree, 600,000 for Queen is too high. Also Sheer Heart Attack seems too high at 805,000. Took until 1982 to go Platinum and then 110,000 between 1992 and 2006, I can't see another 400,000 sales coming between 1982-1992 and 2006-now.
    To elaborate a little on what JP59 is saying about 'Sheer Heart Attack' being too high on 805k at Chartmasters, we can as he says subtract the 110k pretty much nailed on company to retailer/distributor sales of 110k from 1992-2006 bringing the tally down to 695k from the album's November 1974 release until mid-1992.

    So Chartmasters is saying that was what it sold over 18 years. Of course it received a platinum award as he's highlighted during 1982 (7th June to be precise) which was for a minimum shipment of 300k. This means, as JP59 says, approx 400k (395k doing the subtraction from 695k) are deemed to have been sold in the 10 years to 1992. There aren't many catalogue albums that can sell a third more in the fallow years of the 80s than they actually managed in their chart peak period. It does look bad for the method, doesn't it?

    However, it should also not escape people's attention that the award is for a shipment, not actually bought sales as the OCC would count these days, and it could be the 300,000th copy wasn't bought until 1983/84 in retail terms. As long as that is understood then we have to equally balance the possible ledger with the observation that the platinum award could have been somewhat belated. I would be prepared to consider it other than the inconvenient fact that the award coincided with the release of 'Hot Space' and an opportunity for EMI to off-load back catalogue items into the distribution chain ready to benefit from casual purchases along with the new album. They get sold or come back within the next six months or so, that's how it works folks!

    Now personally I would still err on the side of caution and consider the platinum award had been overlooked and that it was noticed when any additional shipments alongside 'Hot Space' were sent out. Something along the lines of an internal memo saying:

    "Hey marketing and publicity department, we're just getting our reps to push Queen back catalogue on the back of the new 'Hot Space' release and noticed that the additional 10k (for instance) we're distributing of 'Sheer Heart Attack' has taken it close to 400k and we missed the chance for platinum some while back. Please apply to the BPI now".

    The reasoning for my hesitancy are the BMRB Top 100 placings of No. 91 in 1974 (from a curtailed/restricted run); No. 39 in 1975 and No. 59 in 1976. That little lot would indicate 400k was more likely in the summer of 1982.

    If it helps Chartmasters is doubtful as we still have them estimating a UK sale of now 'just' 295k from 82-92. Shall we say (on good authority) it was ticking over at a generous 15k a year at retail, then we could bring the 'missing' total down to 145k. Add in a burst of 25k from Freddie's passing and Chartmasters seem to be 120k too high - a 15% discrepancy. I would add little for post-2006 as the data suggests the price reductions in 2005 brought more than enough product into the marketplace. If anything, returns would be possible.

    Of course the discrepancy will be answered by the age-old cry of 'club sales'...and if it is, then we'll have a look at consistency more closely... ;)

    Sorry to step on your toes JP59, I just felt like explaining what you were driving at.

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Originally posted by Rockintunesbaby View Post

    There is a system that they use at Chartmasters that explains how it works. Also take into account that all the other artists there are scrutinised in the same way! Cheers.
    Thanks Rockintunesbaby, there are efforts here and there to explain things, but please don't get me started! I could drive a horse and coaches through much of it when it comes to historical data. I don't doubt the digital and streaming data is fine, but then it should be as it lends itself to mathematical interpretation.

    Using ratios or percentage market sizes etc., is not good the further back you go. The data that is there - say from RIAA or BPI or elsewhere - is not being interpreted correctly. If that is done wrong then the whole house of cards based on it comes tumbling down under the smallest scrutiny. To then use arbitrary interpretations from there (say like single sales equal 3:10 ratio for instance) only compounds the final outcomes.

    Ultimately the US and UK are manageable back to the dawn of the modern rock/pop era thanks to their more complete and fairly reasonable chart histories. But it needs a lot of feel and logic to use them well, and in particular the results must be consistent. Football fans in particular know that there is nothing worse than inconsistent interpretation of the rules by referees. Same with this; you say all artists "are scrutinised in the same way", but that is not borne out by the results.

    Try and compare some, say Fleetwood Mac with Queen, and see what you get. It should work out quite well in every case, but it doesn't! Anyhow, just passing time for Xmas, given all the blooming restrictions etc.

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    At last the voice of reason. How are you JP59, still keeping up with the Bhoys? Another cup under the belt I see.

    There is great merit in what Chartmasters has attempted, and post 1990 when much more reliable chart data was being produced, the margins for error are less and less and are churlish to dispute or argue over. Clearly I've managed to bore/confuse Braca and that is a shame as I was hoping for some discourse on what I had spotted.

    Never mind, the facts are clear to me and, it seems you're inclined to agree that 'Queen' at 600k in the UK is very wrong. I wasn't going to go into 'Sheer Heart Attack' and others but those totals are also questionable.

    And this is the point, they are inaccurate for UK data that is very much more 'knowable' than the rest of Europe (which I also touched on) when they should be lower. It all then feeds into the final CSPC conclusions and, ultimately, produces more spurious data when all is said and done should the media ever start using it. Is it then any better than the media wrongly quoting whatever they've liked to with album sales all these years? I try and let logic triumph over mathematical dogma any day when we don't have the full picture pre-1990 (and often afterwards, but that's another story too!) and there are just too many inconsistencies and flights of fancy on Chartmasters before then that need ironing out severely to make it acceptable to moi.

    It really has become too grandiose - although I can understand why.

    Don't get me wrong, the idea to measure acts in a uniform way is great, but more than a little fine tuning and listening to criticism would help no end. I don't see it happening from my own personal experience of explaining and pointing things out. More likely to take the view that it is to be called a 'gathering' than a 'party' and let's forget about it, if you get my drift...

    Topicel
    Last edited by Topicel; Sun December 26, 2021, 12:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmypages59
    replied
    To be honest, I've never looked at the Queen article in much scrutiny but I agree, 600,000 for Queen is too high. Also Sheer Heart Attack seems too high at 805,000. Took until 1982 to go Platinum and then 110,000 between 1992 and 2006, I can't see another 400,000 sales coming between 1982-1992 and 2006-now.

    Leave a comment:


  • slightlymad
    replied
    Huge spike for Queen in Denmark on iTunes, not sure why perhaps Bo Rhap shown on TV over Christmas?

    1 - NEW Queen - The Platinum Collection
    5 - NEW Queen - Greatest Hits
    7 - NEW Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Soundtrack
    13 - NEW Queen - Greatest Hits II
    22 - NEW Queen - Made In Heaven

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied
    Sorry Topicel...but I keep falling asleep reading ur comments
    draw all the conclusion u like! Water of a duck's back to me

    Leave a comment:


  • Rockintunesbaby
    replied
    Originally posted by Topicel View Post
    Sorry Braca, I don't seem to see an attachment to your post. I did say "database issues aside", by which I meant problems that are notorious with most sites like RIAA and BPI/OCC etc when they are revamped. But even though it was 2007 when you made your posts, this was - as I keep saying - about the end of original album sales in physical format and, in case you didn't know, when Chartmasters (then Fan Of Music) had already made these kind of estimates.

    Sure things change, but it is 'recent' enough in the full sweep of the sales of these Queen catalogue albums. We are not talking about Greatest Hits et al...

    The point remains that Flash Gordon was not certified in its pomp, was a poorly received film and does not exist on the RIAA database. The rule changes for 500k, 1m and 2m are also irrelevant as they are indeed about singles, not albums.

    As for the Eagles, you still seem to misunderstand what I was alluding to. The ratio or percentage of a gold in the UK (whatever its level but for May 1976 around 120k) and a gold in the States (500k in March 1977) and how that is reflected against the Chartmasters 600k total for 'Queen' is what I was explaining. Nothing whatsoever to do with the awards and sales in those two countries for any act. Just the ratio increase.

    So you have 120k increasing to 600k (again, never mind the years in between) - a five-fold or 500% increase in what 'Queen' has been certified for. All I'm saying is to see how wrong that must be is to take the same gold level in the US of 500k and give that a five-fold increase. You get 2.5m, as I was trying to explain, obviously not very clearly.

    I hope you now see what I'm getting at. It is just another metric to show how clearly wrong 600k for 'Queen' in the UK according to Chartmasters is! Quite aside from the basic breakdown I then gave you of the peak commercial years of the album July 1973-May 1976 (120k shipment) and July 1992 to Dec 2006 (120k approx for what are company sales, not purchases) adding to only 240k...

    As for HUR, it has been a long time since we corresponded and he is always reasoned and conservative with his conclusions. The same with JP59. They may or may not make final decisions or have input on the detail Chartmasters puts up, but if you go across the site and look at the comments you'll find plenty who query totals with good reasoning but they rarely are given any attention. I get that it would be hard to answer everyone, but some items, like I'm pointing out, get raised and ignored.

    I'm reminded of how the Tories deal with questions about whether or not cheese and wine being present makes something a Christmas party or not and prefer to call them 'gatherings' when found out. It is kinda like that if anyone suggests Chartmasters have got fundamentals wrong...

    I was hoping someone could explain on here. Anyhow, happy Christmas Day!

    Topicel
    There is a system that they use at Chartmasters that explains how it works. Also take into account that all the other artists there are scrutinised in the same way! Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Sorry Braca, I don't seem to see an attachment to your post. I did say "database issues aside", by which I meant problems that are notorious with most sites like RIAA and BPI/OCC etc when they are revamped. But even though it was 2007 when you made your posts, this was - as I keep saying - about the end of original album sales in physical format and, in case you didn't know, when Chartmasters (then Fan Of Music) had already made these kind of estimates.

    Sure things change, but it is 'recent' enough in the full sweep of the sales of these Queen catalogue albums. We are not talking about Greatest Hits et al...

    The point remains that Flash Gordon was not certified in its pomp, was a poorly received film and does not exist on the RIAA database. The rule changes for 500k, 1m and 2m are also irrelevant as they are indeed about singles, not albums.

    As for the Eagles, you still seem to misunderstand what I was alluding to. The ratio or percentage of a gold in the UK (whatever its level but for May 1976 around 120k) and a gold in the States (500k in March 1977) and how that is reflected against the Chartmasters 600k total for 'Queen' is what I was explaining. Nothing whatsoever to do with the awards and sales in those two countries for any act. Just the ratio increase.

    So you have 120k increasing to 600k (again, never mind the years in between) - a five-fold or 500% increase in what 'Queen' has been certified for. All I'm saying is to see how wrong that must be is to take the same gold level in the US of 500k and give that a five-fold increase. You get 2.5m, as I was trying to explain, obviously not very clearly.

    I hope you now see what I'm getting at. It is just another metric to show how clearly wrong 600k for 'Queen' in the UK according to Chartmasters is! Quite aside from the basic breakdown I then gave you of the peak commercial years of the album July 1973-May 1976 (120k shipment) and July 1992 to Dec 2006 (120k approx for what are company sales, not purchases) adding to only 240k...

    As for HUR, it has been a long time since we corresponded and he is always reasoned and conservative with his conclusions. The same with JP59. They may or may not make final decisions or have input on the detail Chartmasters puts up, but if you go across the site and look at the comments you'll find plenty who query totals with good reasoning but they rarely are given any attention. I get that it would be hard to answer everyone, but some items, like I'm pointing out, get raised and ignored.

    I'm reminded of how the Tories deal with questions about whether or not cheese and wine being present makes something a Christmas party or not and prefer to call them 'gatherings' when found out. It is kinda like that if anyone suggests Chartmasters have got fundamentals wrong...

    I was hoping someone could explain on here. Anyhow, happy Christmas Day!

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied
    Yes I'm the org braca

    Lots of data has been lost on the riaa site. And there are lots of inaccuracies on the riaa site.
    gold awards for a single used to be for 1 million sales and Platinum for 2 million. But every single, awarded gold status on the riaa site, is listed as creditted for 500,000 sales and every Platinum award is listed for 1 million sales.

    FG was certified see Pic / attachment. It cannot be found anymore on the riaa site, but once certified it cannot be undone.
    A post of 2007 u write, so ....fairly recent
    things do change overtime.

    I never said you had mentioned the eagles. My point is the way u address this everything can be argued against.
    Based on their GH UK sales data Riaa 38 million certification can never be correct. I doubt the US number it seems very fishy. But the argument to doubt it cannot be the UK sales data comparison

    I post here what I find on sales data and news articles.
    As I mentioned before in the absence of accurate certification WW data. I believe CM to be the next best thing. You are free to doubt their numbers. I am not going to revist all my own post or any others. I see no reason to.



    ​have you written to hur why he came up with these numbers and 'lifetime later" stands with the numbers of his fellow chartmasters?​ As this was ur org query I believe
    Last edited by Braca3; Sun December 26, 2021, 01:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    ^ Thank you for your reply Braca3. Presumably you are the original Braca?

    If so, this post of yours in 2007 is apposite to the US side issue that I raised.

    https://www.ukmix.org/forum/chart-di...18#post1442918

    In this you are making an educated guess that the far better charting ‘Queen II’ and ‘Flash Gordon’ should be RIAA gold but (database issues aside) the fact is they simply are not. I ask you to now look at the Chartmasters totals for these two - 620k and 765k respectively - and tell me how they and the tally for ‘Queen’ at 750k can be anything else but an ‘educated guess’ too? With no reason why there is a 130k difference between ‘Queen’ and ‘Queen II’ other than a wild guess. The SS figures show little between them, if anything in favour of the latter.

    As for my off the cuff remark that the band were never as big in the US as the UK, it was rather sweeping and I should have added the all important caveat ‘overall’ or ‘through the years’. The brief period late 77 to 1981 was indeed more golden in the States thanks to singles that struck a chord there and indeed propelled the two albums you mention to great heights. But there is no contest over the piece.

    But once more we see an inconsistent approach at Chartmasters with current totals for ‘News Of The World’ at 4,350,000 and ‘The Game’ at 4,950,000. There is no reason for the differences, as both were 4xP in November 2002, and certainly not when you consider the SS figures you referred me to on page 1. If anything, that illustrates the totals on Chartmasters should be reversed! Certainly ‘The Game’ is half a million overweight unless there is a very good reason for such largesse that I’m unaware of?

    As I said, it was not my intention to bother with US numbers other than to make the logical comparison/conclusion that I did with how the UK total of a gold record for the debut album ‘Queen’ at 120k can leap five-fold to 600k when the same in the States would see their gold level 500k become 2.5m. That was my clumsy way of illustrating just how unreal the 600k for ‘Queen’ is, not by way of any direct comparison with official US sales. It is Chartmasters who have made the UK sale jump by 500% from gold, not me.

    And certainly I made no mention of The Eagles, and yes, I agree the recent ‘finds’ by the RIAA for their GH set are/were weird too!

    It is your prerogative to accept what Chartmasters tell you Braca. But while I’m no expert to be any more definitive, I can spot when figures make no sense and 600k for ‘Queen’ in the UK just seems very wrong. For instance, you mentioned JP59’s data, and that comes to 119,457 over the 15 year period 1992-2006. Some club numbers were missing, but it is an average of just over 8k and that, to be frank, was the peak period of CD replacement sales too.

    We have a shipment figure from the May 1976 gold that I have estimated reasonably at 120k, so we are looking at 240k or so with about 15 other non-charting years (1976-91) to account for. Most of these are during the 80s when the band were doing great in the UK but sales generally were not. Another 120k period? Even if a little more we are struggling to get past 400k, even with shipments when Freddie died, never mind 600k.

    From what I can see some thought is required when looking at Chartmasters data from before the CIN/OCC era. It is not as realistic as it might seem and these inconsistencies are everywhere.

    And as I said before, if the input data is that far out then the output CSPC totals will be even more unreliable.

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied
    >> Topical fyi
    Hur is part of the chartmasters team
    Martin also part of the chartmasters team (Jimmypages here) has (or had) access to UK shipmentdata

    I take issue with ur statement that "I know the band were never as big in the US as the UK" from NOTW up to The Game Queen where bigger in the US and Canada than anywhere else incl the UK

    I believe your comparison arguments US vs UK sales data are flawed.
    How you argue eagles GH 9 million add ons (I cannot for the life of me imagine where those came from) in recent years in the US to 38 million in comparison to their UK sales data?

    On page 1 basil lists known SS numbers for the US (91 to 2006) SS did not (still does not i believe) cover all US sales. 750 in the US does not seem strange to me

    Chartmasters might not be a100% accurate but I see no reason to believe they are far off the mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Many thanks Rockintunesbaby.

    I was aware of that site and admire it for its sheer scope and ambition but sadly, when it comes to historical data (by which I mean prior to the digital era), it really doesn't bear scrutiny. It might be that HUR's list was completely out of date as you say, but it was done in 2006 and if it was based on anything other than guesswork I fail to see how the Chartmasters data is anything more than the same.

    Let's just take one example, the first Queen album, 'Queen', from 1973 and focus on the UK only as their country of origin. HUR had a total in 2006 of 150k which, of course, was underweight reality. But according to Chartmasters that same album has managed 600k - surely very overweight?!

    As an album it flopped badly following its July 1973 release and made no chart impact until the success of 'Queen II' brought it to the public's attention on 30/3/74 when over a seven-week period it made the then Top 50 five times with a peak of just No. 32. It made a one week revisit in January 1975 at No. 49 (no doubt on the back of interest fanned by 'Killer Queen' and 'Now I'm Here') but that was it until the immense impact of 'Boh Rhap' saw it reach its ultimate peak of No. 24 with twelve further Top 60 weeks from January 1976.

    The BPI award of gold in May 1976 was evidently on the back of all this extra activity. In those days it was a monetary total and probably was equal to 120k at best, all shipments. The actual number of copies bought were obviously lower.

    I've no idea how HUR rationalised all of this and arrived at 150k, but he was undoubtedly being ultra cautious in only allowing 30k more in the ensuing 30 years to 2006. But anyone adding 480k to arrive at 600k over the same time frame is being more than 'comprehensive', don't you think?!

    Let's put that in percentage perspective. The total of 600k is a 500% increase on the 120,000 that the initial gold award roughly represented. Using that logic the 500,000 that the album managed for the RIAA gold in the States in March 1977 would mean an equivalent sale there of 2.5m...

    I know the band were never as big in the US as the UK, but that is how daft 600,000 for a UK sale really is. And while we're at it, how is the US total of 750k justified? Adding 250k seems like a wild mid-point guess to me just because there has been no platinum...

    I'm sure all the rest of the comprehensive country and region conclusions for just this first album are equally suspect when you get right down to looking at them closely. It all seems so arbitrary, so invented, so inconsistent. Suddenly the global total of 3,120,000 in Chartmasters has the air of fantasy about it and that is a big problem as with each elastic conclusion like this eventually feeding into the final CSCP analysis, that too becomes expansive nonsense, for all its merits as a novel way of measuring success.

    The question now for the current crop of Queen posters who follow these things - which is surely why you're all here after all - which estimate is closer to the truth, HUR in 2006 or Chartmasters 2021?

    Topicel
    Last edited by Topicel; Thu December 23, 2021, 21:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rockintunesbaby
    replied
    Originally posted by Topicel View Post

    I was revisiting this forum and this thread in particular of one of my favourite acts and came across this post by HUR who was a very knowledgeable Queen fan.

    He ends it by asking for comments or opinions, so (15 years too late no doubt!) I was wondering if the estimates in this section still hold good?

    On the face of it they seemed reasonable in total globally in most cases but were perhaps a little light on the specific numbers such as the UK figures. A Night At The Opera must have exceeded 1,200,000 there for instance.

    It was done in 2006 and so really took in all the serious physical sales era so there isn't much that was missed I'd imagine in the intervening years. Are there any revised ideas out there from the current crop of Queen posters?

    Topicel
    This list is completely out of date. Please click on this link for the most comprehensive and up to date sales for Queen and many other recording artists. It includes Vinyl, CD, tape, DVD, Video, download and streaming.

    https://chartmasters.org/best-sellin...-all-time/amp/

    Leave a comment:


  • Topicel
    replied
    Originally posted by HUR View Post
    Well, I will start a break down with the Queen back catalog. Most of the following numbers are based on estimations due to lack of information. Dispite that, I know much more now than when I first enterd at this page, so first of all, I have to thank to all people here, like MJ Dangerous, Basil, Colin, Hanboo, John 2000, Mario, Enno, Indi, and a lot more.

    1- Queen

    -UK: 150 k
    -USA: 800 k
    -Japan: 24 k (charted in 1975 and 2004)

    Estimated worldwide: 1.500.000 copies.


    It didnīt chart in most countries, but with more than 30 years of back catalog sales that number seems to be right (or at least I think so).

    2- Queen 2

    -UK: 200 k
    -USA: 500 k
    -Japan: 56 k
    -Norway: number 18 on the charts

    Estimation worldwide: 1.000.000 copies

    3- Sheer heart attack

    -UK: 500 k
    -USA: 800 k
    -Japan: 104 k
    -Netherlands: number 6
    -Norway: number 9
    -Australia: number 19
    -France: number 24
    -Spain: number 18

    Estimation worldwide: 2.000.000 copies


    4- A night at the opera

    -UK: 1200 k
    -Netherlands: 300 k (9 weeks at number one in 1976, charted again in 1992)
    -Germany: 700 k (certified 500 k in 1993).
    -Spain: 200 k (number 2, 18 weeks on the charts, and the best selling album of 1976 accordind to a spanish press article)
    -Italy: 50 k (it never charted until 2005 with the re-release)
    -France: 100 k (flopped in 1976, but a very decent back catalog seller)
    -Switzerlands: 70 k (certified 50 k in 1992)
    -Austria: 25 k
    -Sweden: 50 k
    -Rest of Europe: 300 k

    -USA: 3500 k (certified 3000 k in 2002)
    -Canada: 200 k

    -Japan: 200 k

    -Australia: 300 k (2 weeks at number one at the end of 1975, and the fourth best selling album of 1976)

    Estimation worldwide: 8.000.000 copies.

    Some charts facts:

    - In UK, it was at number one during 4 weeks between the end of 1975 and the beginning of 1976. According to the Queenīs archivist (in his book "As it began) it sold over 500.000 copies in its first 8 weeks. It was 50 weeks on the official charts, and 93 on the biggest one available since 1994. It was also one of the 30 best selling albums of the 70ī and in the top 100 of the best selling albums compiled in 1987.

    - In USA, it had a very good chart-running during 1976, peaking at number 4 (three weeks at that position), and seven at top ten. It was surely one of the big seller between 1976 and 1977. It sold more than 981.000 copies since 1991, and will pass the million mark this year. For that reason, 3.500.000 copies can be a very godd picture of its real sales.


    I will post some other estimations. Of course these is nothing official, bit still a very good idea about some Queen worldwide sales.

    Iīm looking forwrd to comments or opinions about this numbers from people here, due to most of them are estimations. And besides, I also wait for claims about this break downs being fake.
    I was revisiting this forum and this thread in particular of one of my favourite acts and came across this post by HUR who was a very knowledgeable Queen fan.

    He ends it by asking for comments or opinions, so (15 years too late no doubt!) I was wondering if the estimates in this section still hold good?

    On the face of it they seemed reasonable in total globally in most cases but were perhaps a little light on the specific numbers such as the UK figures. A Night At The Opera must have exceeded 1,200,000 there for instance.

    It was done in 2006 and so really took in all the serious physical sales era so there isn't much that was missed I'd imagine in the intervening years. Are there any revised ideas out there from the current crop of Queen posters?

    Topicel

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied
    Queen Love Of My Life Emi Gold Single 17.12.2021 18.11.2004
    Bpi

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied
    https://chartdata.org/2021/12/01/spo...tists-of-2021/
    Spotify’s Top 50 Artists of 2021
    #43 – Queen

    https://chartdata.org/2020/12/02/spo...tists-of-2020/
    Spotify’s Top 50 Artists of 2020
    #34 – Queen
    Last edited by Braca3; Mon December 20, 2021, 09:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevinmakeme
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied

    Chart Date: 12/17/2021 (WEEK ENDING: 12/16/2021)
    LW TW ARTIST | TITLE | LABEL TOTAL CHANGE ALBUMS TEA SEA
    50 49 QUEEN | GREATEST HITS 1
    HOLLYWOOD
    17,251 1% 6,134 406 10,402

    https://hitsdailydouble.com/sales_plus_streaming

    Leave a comment:


  • Braca3
    replied

    Chart Date: 12/10/2021 (WEEK ENDING: 12/09/2021
    LW TW ARTIST | TITLE | LABEL TOTAL CHANGE ALBUMS TEA SEA
    23 50 QUEEN | GREATEST HITS 1
    HOLLYWOOD
    17,045 -24% 5,481 418 11,146
    YTD OVERALL ACTIVITY
    RANK ARTIST | TITLE | LABEL YTD ACTIVITY ALBUMS SONGS AOD STREAMS VOD STREAMS
    29 QUEEN | GREATEST HITS 1
    HOLLYWOOD
    918,000 209,000 313,000 879,615,000 68,514,000
    Last edited by Braca3; Fri December 10, 2021, 21:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • zeus555
    replied
    I thought that you may be interested in today's Official Charts Feature about 'Bohemian Rhapsody':

    Link:

    https://www.officialcharts.com/chart...RyMqJ4XFxDS1tk


    Zeus555

    Leave a comment:


  • slightlymad
    replied
    Spotify Wrapped for 2021, Another great result for Queen

    Most Streamed UK Artists Globally
    1. Dua Lipa
    2. Ed Sheeran
    3. Coldplay
    4. One Direction
    5. Queen

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X