QueenZone discussion #625325

Breadman wrote: That period (80,81) would have seen them popular in America too. But I would also consider times when they were not popular in America. Like they probably could have claimed that title around the time of the Live Aid performance?

Zeni wrote: In the world? 1980-1981.

ok.computer wrote: Oh, and can I just add: This "who's best and biggest thing"....very tedious....it lowers music to a mere competition, and that's not where music deserves to be. But again, that's just my opinion. P

ok.computer wrote: Define "biggest"..... Or do we mean popular in countries with massive populations? America is an important market, for sure. But what is the population size of North America versus South America. The USA has a population of around 296 million. (Scary thought time: when I was at school, around 12 years ago, it was 250 million.... ever think about those resources, guys...?) The UK has a population of around 60 million. Argentina has around 40 million; Brazil around 186 million. The band were big there. Serry would be able to tell you how big Queen were in Russia, I presume? It has a population of around 143 million.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Zeni wrote: In the world? 1980-1981.

Pink Floyd was arguably as big or even bigger than Queen on that period. In my opinion 1984-1986 was a period where there was no active band bigger than Queen.

ok.computer wrote: Oh, and can I just add: This "who's best and biggest thing"....very tedious....it lowers music to a mere competition, and that's not where music deserves to be. But again, that's just my opinion. P

kagezan1313 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: D

Let's not forget Japan, with a population of 186 million. All in all, I would say you'd have to divide bands into record sales and live show sales. There was no bigger live show in 1986 than Queen's Magic Tour. I would say that from 1984 to 1986, there was no bigger live band on the planet than Queen. U2 took over the spot in '87, and have held it to date.

QUEEN1985 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: i think that queen was the most succesful band and the biggest between 1980 and 1995. they were sold out in all the world (and the first ever band to play in argentina, brazil, mexico, venezuela, south africa, hungary), they sold millions copies with their albums (greatest hits sold over 25 millions copies, gresatest hits 2 about 20 millions, "made in heaven" 10 millins, and more).

they were'nt the biggest on any scale during the time period you quote.
worldwide sales and tours during that period were topped by
Pink Floyd
Madonna
Springsteen
Rolling Stones
Michael Jackson
U2
check the official figures - queen are 7th (at best) - they produced nothing from 91-95. and also no new material from 86-89 (that's 7 years when there was no studio album) - also they didn't tour from 86-95 - so the period you quote has queen fairly inactive
now had you said they were the top of the crop from 78-81 - i would have been inclined to agree with you. but to state a fifteen year period is implausible - even the beatles only stayed at the top for 7 years!!!

Mr.Jingles wrote:

kagezan1313 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: D

Let's not forget Japan, with a population of 186 million. All in all, I would say you'd have to divide bands into record sales and live show sales. There was no bigger live show in 1986 than Queen's Magic Tour. I would say that from 1984 to 1986, there was no bigger live band on the planet than Queen. U2 took over the spot in '87, and have held it to date.

I think U2 held it for a while after 'The Joshua Tree'. Then it was definitely Guns N' Roses, Metallica, and Nirvana who took that spot during the 90s. Later on U2 took the spot back when they released 'All That You Can't Leave Behind'. Nowdays, Green Day seems to hold the title. They have a massive world tour, constant media exposure, and 4 singles so far of their new album being air played on radio stations around the world.

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

QUEEN1985 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: i think that queen was the most succesful band and the biggest between 1980 and 1995. they were sold out in all the world (and the first ever band to play in argentina, brazil, mexico, venezuela, south africa, hungary), they sold millions copies with their albums (greatest hits sold over 25 millions copies, gresatest hits 2 about 20 millions, "made in heaven" 10 millins, and more).

Please mind where you're "snipping" your quotes. Your post makes it look like I posted in some erroneous stuff, which, if you go back to mine, whill show you that I didn't.
Cheers, in the spirit of accuracy!
P

ok.computer wrote:

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

QUEEN1985 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: i think that queen was the most succesful band and the biggest between 1980 and 1995. they were sold out in all the world (and the first ever band to play in argentina, brazil, mexico, venezuela, south africa, hungary), they sold millions copies with their albums (greatest hits sold over 25 millions copies, gresatest hits 2 about 20 millions, "made in heaven" 10 millins, and more).

Please mind where you're "snipping" your quotes. Your post makes it look like I posted in some erroneous stuff, which, if you go back to mine, whill show you that I didn't. Cheers, in the spirit of accuracy! P

hello.
sorry, my english is not the best, so i don´t understood your last massage.
but, one questions where did you get the information that you gave in the other massage, about the period 1980-1895. because the other artist that you mentioned were a great succes in usa, but that is not the case of queen. but, the world, all the world, has other 200 countries.
and queen was most succesful than rolling stones, pink floyd and u2 in that years, not in usa, but in general in the rest of the world, queen was more than that bands.

kagezan1313 wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

kagezan1313 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: D

Let's not forget Japan, with a population of 186 million. All in all, I would say you'd have to divide bands into record sales and live show sales. There was no bigger live show in 1986 than Queen's Magic Tour. I would say that from 1984 to 1986, there was no bigger live band on the planet than Queen. U2 took over the spot in '87, and have held it to date.

I think U2 held it for a while after 'The Joshua Tree'. Then it was definitely Guns N' Roses, Metallica, and Nirvana who took that spot during the 90s. Later on U2 took the spot back when they released 'All That You Can't Leave Behind'. Nowdays, Green Day seems to hold the title. They have a massive world tour, constant media exposure, and 4 singles so far of their new album being air played on radio stations around the world.

Nawp! I must protest! Following their 87-88 tour with Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, they went down to rethink for 2 years, then hit the world with the ZooTV tour, one of the biggest and longest tours ever, which saw the release of Achtung Baby and Zooropa. Following that, in '95, the PopMart tour used the biggest stage ever created for a live show and utilized the biggest video screen ever created. They then downsized and returned to their more wholesome image with All That You Can't Leave Behind, followed of course by their current tour. So, I really don't think that U2 have relinquished the torch they took from Queen as far as kings of the live venue is concerned.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

kagezan1313 wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

kagezan1313 wrote:

ok.computer wrote: D

Let's not forget Japan, with a population of 186 million. All in all, I would say you'd have to divide bands into record sales and live show sales. There was no bigger live show in 1986 than Queen's Magic Tour. I would say that from 1984 to 1986, there was no bigger live band on the planet than Queen. U2 took over the spot in '87, and have held it to date.

I think U2 held it for a while after 'The Joshua Tree'. Then it was definitely Guns N' Roses, Metallica, and Nirvana who took that spot during the 90s. Later on U2 took the spot back when they released 'All That You Can't Leave Behind'. Nowdays, Green Day seems to hold the title. They have a massive world tour, constant media exposure, and 4 singles so far of their new album being air played on radio stations around the world.

Nawp! I must protest! Following their 87-88 tour with Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, they went down to rethink for 2 years, then hit the world with the ZooTV tour, one of the biggest and longest tours ever, which saw the release of Achtung Baby and Zooropa. Following that, in '95, the PopMart tour used the biggest stage ever created for a live show and utilized the biggest video screen ever created. They then downsized and returned to their more wholesome image with All That You Can't Leave Behind, followed of course by their current tour. So, I really don't think that U2 have relinquished the torch they took from Queen as far as kings of the live venue is concerned.

Just because a band has the biggest tour doesn't mean they're the "greatest" band in the world. In that case The Rolling Stones would be the biggest band in the world, even though their albums don't sell as well as their 60s, and 70s work. Part of the "greatness" of a band has to be with how their current work is being accepted, and that includes if their singles receive radio airplay, and album sales are on the rise .While the 'Zooropa' and 'Pop' tours were massive, the general public response to those albums was really low compared to 'The Joshua Tree' and 'Achtung Baby'. As an example, there's no doubt that Michael Jackson was the greatest artist in the world in 1983 and 1984, but that didn't have anything to be with how big was the size of the screen on his promotional tour.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Zeni wrote: In the world? 1980-1981.

Pink Floyd was arguably as big or even bigger than Queen on that period. In my opinion 1984-1986 was a period where there was no active band bigger than Queen.

ok.computer wrote: Oh, and can I just add: This "who's best and biggest thing"....very tedious....it lowers music to a mere competition, and that's not where music deserves to be. But again, that's just my opinion. P

Breadman wrote: As Zeni wrote "It's not an exact science, I know, but it's one of those situations that you can recognize even if you cannot describe it". Included in consideration of the topic is a mixture of factors such as album sales, concert sizes, touring schedule, media converage. Possibly also being a band that has been around for a while and has built up a reputation. It is obviously difficult to establish a strict one to one correspondence between the title "biggest band in world" and one band, although we can have fun in discussing the matter and brainstorming a shortlist of 2 or 3 candidate bands. A general consensus from discussion so far is that Queen were a candidate band around the early and mid eighties. I think Queen were definitely Britain's most consistently successful group on average over the 70s and 80s. Could they lay claim to this out of all bands, not just British ones? As for the North American market, it is definitely a most important market, but I still maintain that it is not the be-all and end-all. It is surely the most prized market, although I still think that a general global appeal is neccessary and preferable. Garth Brooks sells a phenomenal amount of records in the US, though I am not sure how big he is outside of the US. Queen were able to do very well in every continent except Antarctica of course. To date they have only sold around 30 million albums in the US, yet they are in the top 5 or 6 biggest selling bands of all time. None of their albums are on the top US selling albums list at link, yet Greatest Hits 1 is one of the biggest selling albums of all time.