Michael Allred 21.09.2005 23:42 |
US BILLBOARD CHART First week Return of the Champions CD Queen & Paul Rodgers: #84 Top 200 Consider me shocked. |
MercuryArts 21.09.2005 23:52 |
Shocked as well! |
The Real Wizard 22.09.2005 11:40 |
Wow, amazing... I guess there's a bit of interest after all. |
Erin 22.09.2005 12:17 |
I'm pretty surprised actually..:-o |
Ray D O'Gaga 22.09.2005 14:26 |
If they do some press and some TV while they're here in October, it could conceivably even climb a bit. And if they're serious about coming back in 2006, they should hit the TV circuit pretty hard. Show people what they've got to offer (which I think is pretty impressive). |
AlexRocks 22.09.2005 14:46 |
Wow! That's disasterace! Didn't Page/Plant, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and Black Sabbath all do way better on their live reunion c.d. releases? That means so far this project IS failing...or am I wrong? Of course it can always move up but nowadays for the past number of years it seems that a c.d. has to debut strong because then it just fades away after its first week... |
PieterMC 22.09.2005 15:18 |
Hardly a failure considering the lack of promotion for the album. |
Erin 22.09.2005 15:24 |
PieterMC wrote: Hardly a failure considering the lack of promotion for the album.Hardly a failure considering the cover of the album..;-) |
its_a_hard_life 22.09.2005 16:25 |
Wow shit already! Wicked news, im so happy for them! |
Michael Allred 22.09.2005 16:34 |
AlexRocks wrote: Wow! That's disasterace! Didn't Page/Plant, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and Black Sabbath all do way better on their live reunion c.d. releases? That means so far this project IS failing...or am I wrong? Of course it can always move up but nowadays for the past number of years it seems that a c.d. has to debut strong because then it just fades away after its first week...The difference between Queen+ Paul and the others you mention is that the others had TV specials and massive media exposure. For our boys to make a dent, they NEED to get on TV...Leno, Letterman, Conan, SNL, etc. |
Mr. Mercury 1975 22.09.2005 16:45 |
Seriously... there was no press over here about the release. No one even knew about it. It still made #84. I'm impressed. I'm beginning to get the impression that many people underestimate Queen's popularity here in the States. While not what it was in the late 70's or early 80's, they're still pretty damn popular. I almost get the sense that some people expect the boys to bomb in America. I think you'll be more than surprised just how well they do over here across the pond. They've never been and never could be as popular here as they are in the U.K. It just won't happen. From what I've seen here and firsthand in England, they're on par over there with what America (myself excluded) thinks of the Beatles. In fact, they've spent more time on the charts than the Beatles in the U.K.. As unfair a reason to jumpstart their popularity and as stupid a movie as it was, Wayne's World opened up Queen to a whole new generation of Americans. I hated that movie, but even I couldn't deny the impact it had on Queen record sales. Sure, it's been about 12 or 13 years since that happened, but America hasn't forgotten Queen. Far from it. Granted, everyone at the show will not know all of the lyrics and be able to sing along to every song. But, I guaranty there will be enough of us who can do so there to make ourselves heard. Like I mentioned in another post, I saw Brian open for Guns & Roses on the Back to the Light tour in 1993 (Portland, Maine). First of all, he ripped through a blistering set that was vintage Brian! He sounded as great as he did on the Live Killers album. Second, the ovation he got was deafening!!! It was as loud, if not moreso, than the one Axl & Co. received. Of course, that could have just been because Axl waited 2 hours after Brian was done to finally make it on stage. Anyway... America loves Queen and we anxiously await their arrival!!! |
Jimi 22.09.2005 16:55 |
great post. I was at Wembley Stadium when Brian came on with G n R and they performe Tie Your Mother Down. Awesome. Queen made a massive impact in the mid 70's to 80 in the states. The Fred factor may make a difference though. |
Mr. Mercury 1975 22.09.2005 16:58 |
G & R -- Ah... what could have been!! They could have been one of the greatest rock bands of all time if not for Axl the control freak... I do like what Slash & Co. are doing with Velvet Revolver. But, that is another story for another day. |
The Stealer 22.09.2005 21:56 |
Hoorah for the decent showing in the charts with very little promotion..can't wait for the October shows...I want my QPR...I want my QPR!!! |
Ray D O'Gaga 22.09.2005 22:19 |
AlexRocks wrote: Wow! That's disasterace! Didn't Page/Plant, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and Black Sabbath all do way better on their live reunion c.d. releases? That means so far this project IS failing...or am I wrong? Of course it can always move up but nowadays for the past number of years it seems that a c.d. has to debut strong because then it just fades away after its first week...By comparison, does anybody know if "On Fire - Live at the Bowl" charted in the U.S. at all? And that release, need I say, included the almighty Fred, didn't it? Did it break the Top 200 in the US? Given that there has been zero US media support so far for the release, a #84 debut is astonishingly good in my eyes. And my clear recollection is that you couldn't turn on the TV for MONTHS in the US without seeing Plant/Page's "Un-Ledded: No Quarter", the Eagles' "Hell Freezes Over" and Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" on MTV and VH-1 around the time of those original releases. Those bands and their TV specials were coming out of the faucets. Queen + Paul Rodgers hasn't even set foot on North American soil yet, let alone been on the airwaves. If they got that kind of media support and exposure (and I expect they won't because Queen+/-/whatever never seems to have the right support machinery in place here), they'd easily have their biggest North American success in 14 years. But thus far, its pretty much under the radar of the average person. If the band/album/tour got on TV enough, people would shit themselves to see the band. |
NOTWMEDDLE 22.09.2005 22:24 |
Also, Pink Floyd had a #1 live album with PULSE in 1995 coming after the success of The Division Bell tour of 1994. The Division Bell was a #1 album here in the US as well. PULSE sold well in the US! |
The Real Wizard 23.09.2005 00:11 |
We are forgetting the fact that the New Jersey concert has already sold out, and the Los Angeles concert is on its way to doing the same. I think they'll spend the winter doing the marketing. Right now they are busy re-working the show for the US, Aruba, and Japan. Or at least, I'd like to think so. |
Maz 23.09.2005 01:23 |
One thing I noticed, which I think is to Hollywood's credit, was store placement. Bestbuy had a bonus DVD, which also meant a sizable spot in the weekly ad, and independent record stores had exclusive promo CDs. In addition, ROTC had good placement in Wal Mart endcaps, which are never random assingments. In most modern Wal Marts, higher-ups predetermine what product goes on the endcap, resulting in greater exposure, and how many slots it takes up. These spots are usually taken up by the new Jessica Simpson or Toby Keith releases. I noticed that ROTC had a couple spots. Hollywood could certainly get the CD out more through the media, but this was the most publicity I'd seen at the retail-store level since MIH. |
Fedepetti 23.09.2005 22:34 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote:Live At The Bowl NEVER did the Billboard 200, it only sold 3,000 copies the debut week, very far from the #200 position on the chart.AlexRocks wrote: Wow! That's disasterace! Didn't Page/Plant, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and Black Sabbath all do way better on their live reunion c.d. releases? That means so far this project IS failing...or am I wrong? Of course it can always move up but nowadays for the past number of years it seems that a c.d. has to debut strong because then it just fades away after its first week...By comparison, does anybody know if "On Fire - Live at the Bowl" charted in the U.S. at all? And that release, need I say, included the almighty Fred, didn't it? Did it break the Top 200 in the US? Given that there has been zero US media support so far for the release, a #84 debut is astonishingly good in my eyes. ROTC debuted at #84 with 11,340 copies, a damn impresive number after all. |
AlexRocks 23.09.2005 23:01 |
In terms of modern day popularity who here knew that Queen held the record for the Billboard charts to have the highest charting three c.d. set in the U.S. of all time in 2002 a year before Led Zeppelin's "How The West Was Won" came out in 2003? That was for the U.S. release of "The Platinum Collection". If I recall it went to number 2 but I am not sure... Also does anyone worry that the "On Fire" c.d. and or d.v.d. might go out of print for not selling so many copies? |
Fedepetti 24.09.2005 00:57 |
AlexRocks wrote: In terms of modern day popularity who here knew that Queen held the record for the Billboard charts to have the highest charting three c.d. set in the U.S. of all time in 2002 a year before Led Zeppelin's "How The West Was Won" came out in 2003? That was for the U.S. release of "The Platinum Collection". If I recall it went to number 2 but I am not sure...It reached #2 in UK and spent a lot of weeks in the Top 75, more than 100 if I remember good. In US debuted at #48, and dropped of the Billboard 200 the following week. Actually, The Platinum Collection it's one of the 10 worst drops of the US chart history and the #3 among albums that never returned to the Billboard 200: drop // wks on chart // album-artist * returned to the chart 12-out // 20wks // Merry Christmas - Johnny Mathis (1962) 33-out // 22wks // Holiday Sing Along With Mitch - Mitch Miller (1962) 34-out // 9wks // Christmas - Kenny Rogers (1982) * 37-out // 1wk // Wide Awake In America [EP] - U2 (1985) * 38-out // 2wks // What A Wonderful World - Anne Murray (2000) * 41-out // 8wks // A Fresh Aire Christmas - Mannheim Steamroller (1989) * 45-out // 9wks // Christmas Extraordinaire - Mannheim Steamroller (2002) * 46-out // 27wks Merry Christmas - Bing Crosby (1962) * 46-out // 1wk Electric Breakdance - Various Artists (1984) * 48-out // 1wk Greatest Hits I, II & III - Queen (2002) |
Knute 24.09.2005 02:10 |
LOL, They are almost all xmas albums. Where do you get this kind of US chart information? |
teleman 24.09.2005 13:24 |
I picked up ROTC yesterday in Toronto @ HMV Store placement wasn't good but at least it was there. Other shops didn't care to sell it. I guess that's the North American apathy toward Queen. #84 doesn't seem that bad but it might be better if people were aware that this was out there. Promotion does make a difference. |
NOTWMEDDLE 25.09.2005 02:08 |
AlexRocks wrote: In terms of modern day popularity who here knew that Queen held the record for the Billboard charts to have the highest charting three c.d. set in the U.S. of all time in 2002 a year before Led Zeppelin's "How The West Was Won" came out in 2003? That was for the U.S. release of "The Platinum Collection". If I recall it went to number 2 but I am not sure... Also does anyone worry that the "On Fire" c.d. and or d.v.d. might go out of print for not selling so many copies?The On Fire CD and DVD will still be available. The problem was On Fire didn't get promoted unlike say phlEghMINEM or whatever! |
AlexRocks 29.09.2005 16:55 |
In no way I am I trying to argue with you NotWMeddle I am just trying to understand but why do you think that "On Fire: At The Bowl" will stay in print? Especially if no one really bought it and it sells less now? They should have advertised that better as well. These are important releases to sell well. Especially in the U.S. Hollywood Records need to see through sales that there is an interest in Queen as a product and so that future releases will get the promotion that they need so that there will be good releases again in the future. We already know Queen have a bunch of stuff to release. We don't want it to all go out of print or never get released in the first place because no one are buying it. As it is Hollywood Records said a couple of years ago that they would not be releasing the Queen anthology box sets anyway. They would only do three c.d.s sets at the most. I am sure that has to do with them thinking they just won't sell well. Does anyone know how well "Crown Jewels" has sold in the U.S.? It does seem that for a good five years after that release I saw it a good bit which seemed good. Now that was just a limited edition so that is why that is out of print now. There isn't anything to read into that I know. |