Breadman 21.09.2005 14:15 |
What periods, if any, could Queen have been considered to be the 'Biggest Band in the World'? I am guessing that any such periods would be within 1979 - 1986? |
Maz 21.09.2005 14:16 |
In the world? 1980-1981. |
Breadman 21.09.2005 14:21 |
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? |
teleman 21.09.2005 14:33 |
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?Considering the value of the North American market I doubt Queen could be considered the biggest band on the planet after 80/81. However it is a testament to Queen's appeal that they were so successful even without the North American market. |
Maz 21.09.2005 15:58 |
Wouldn't being the biggest band in the ''world'' almost necessitate that they were popular in the North American market? If so, then any period after 1982 would disqualify Queen. Besides, 1980-1981 was not only when they were huge in North America, but also when they ''opened up'' the South American markets. |
ok.computer 21.09.2005 17:32 |
Define "biggest"..... By biggest, could one possibly mean: "Right, let's go a country in the asshole of nowhere, show some foreign johnny a picture of the band, and see if they recognise it..." ? Or do we mean record sales? If so why? Queen were big in South America, but not as many people could afford a big record collection. 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. Did I read recently that Queen had sold more albums than the Beatles? So do we measure by that? Or yet again, do we look at this over a thirty year cumulative period? Concert ticket sales? (in which case, Queen don't even get a look-in) And so on and so forth. For what its worth, I'd like to see the Beatles removed from this plinth that they have, where they are set above everybody else. I (now this is ME before anyone jumps in to their defence...) find them over-rated, bland, un-inspiring, and quite frankly, their support comes from a thankfully fast disappearing generation of baby-boomers... but that's just my opinion! Cheers Paul |
ok.computer 21.09.2005 17:33 |
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 |
Mr.Jingles 21.09.2005 17:38 |
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. |
brENsKi 21.09.2005 17:40 |
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. Pagreed. but have to take issue with your 'remove the beatles form plinth' thing...why? best is best - and they are the best (of all time) no-one will come close - the forged new ground that made the 'ride' much easier for bands like queen to experiment. - look at queen's influences...a major one they ALL list is Lennon/McCartney - no beatles - no queen (at leats not as we all know and loved!!!) |
kagezan1313 21.09.2005 18:11 |
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.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. |
Maz 21.09.2005 22:27 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Arguably, yes. But during 1980-81, Queen had massive tours of North America, Europe, Japan, and South America, while Pink Floyd only played 4 cities in 3 countries (US, England, West Germany).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. To me, to be the biggest band in the ''world,'' you have to have a sizable presence in Europe, North America, South America, and the Asian-rim. This comes through record sales, concerts, and ''media exposure.'' 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. Queen from 1984-1986 was big, but it ignored the North American market. To make a comparison to today, Robbie Williams may be a huge star in Europe (if not the biggest), but his last album sold less than 150,000 copies in the US. There's no way you could classify him as being the biggest star in the world based on his lack of performance in the States. And my final point - Brian May agrees with me. During the In The Studio radio program about The Game, Brian said (paraphrasing to an extent here) that if Queen was ever the biggest band in the world, it was in the fifteen seconds after Another One Bites The Dust was released. |
deleted user 22.09.2005 00:22 |
Id say '91. Its like Pocasso, when your dead (Freddie :-() they notice you which sucks, but before that they were well known so....yeah. |
QUEEN1985 22.09.2005 02:52 |
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. Phello. if we have to be honest, queen didn´t sell more albums than the beatles, but they were more weeks in uk´charts. 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). and according to the sun "the game sold more than 2 millions copies in argentina, and it also sold about 4 or 5 millions in usa, 500.000 in canada, about 200.000 in mexico and it was a great succes in brazil. they have some of the most played songs in the 80´, as "another one bites the dust" in usa and "radio ga-ga", "i want to break free" and other in europe. they were the best band in live aid, and a records in sells with some of treir concerts in some countries, as hannover in germany, in ireland, swissland and uk. and bpi gave them the contribution award in 1990, and they were the firs band to recive it. so then in that years they were the most succeful band, but that is what i thimk. |
DragonOnMyBack 22.09.2005 04:48 |
Date :13th July 1985 Time :18:40 to 19:00(BST) |
The Mir@cle 22.09.2005 05:03 |
Yes.... Queen definitely rocked this world at Live AID. At that time, they were the biggest. Queen is surely "one of the biggest" bands in history. It's hard to name one band!! |
mazz 22.09.2005 06:50 |
yes 1969 smile larry lurex queen and beyond 1991 they rocked my world |
Mr.Jingles 22.09.2005 09:49 |
kagezan1313 wrote: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'.ok.computer wrote: DLet'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. 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. |
brENsKi 22.09.2005 16:05 |
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. |
Erin 22.09.2005 16:38 |
They are the biggest band in MY world...:-) |
Mr. Mercury 1975 22.09.2005 17:17 |
"no new material from 86-89" Umm... did we ignore the rules here? You might want to check what year The Miracle was released, my friend. Just so you don't have to look it up, it was 1989. |
mike hunt 22.09.2005 18:43 |
you don't know what he meant my friend? 87/88, queen had no studio albums, meanwhile, "magic" was a huge hit worldwide, that's why it makes me laugh when people kill that album, but in the states it flopped. how do you judge if it was a success then, also the miracle was a huge hit, but only minor in the states, again how do you judge if it was a success. it's hard to tell. Depends where your from. |
kagezan1313 23.09.2005 14:16 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: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.kagezan1313 wrote: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.ok.computer wrote: DLet'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. |
ok.computer 23.09.2005 20:06 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:QUEEN1985 wrote: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.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). |
QUEEN1985 24.09.2005 02:54 |
ok.computer wrote:<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:hello.QUEEN1985 wrote: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! Pok.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). |
Mr.Jingles 24.09.2005 14:44 |
kagezan1313 wrote: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'.Mr.Jingles wrote: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.kagezan1313 wrote: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.ok.computer wrote: DLet'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. 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. |
Sithmarauder 25.09.2005 09:19 |
That's a tough question to answer,based on time spent on the charts, I believe Queen is ahead of eveyone.(Beatles included). They were huge in SA,Europe but not in the US. Unfortunately, it took Freddies death and some media giant clout from Hollywood Records (who is owned by Disney)to rekindle record sales in the US. I feel the Sun City GIG hurt Queen big time. Especially in the US. We can only imagine how big they could have been. I know a lot of people who was never into Queen who think they were the best live band they ever heard. Mostly baased on the Live Aid gig. |
kagezan1313 26.09.2005 14:25 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Well, that's why I think the question "who's the biggest band in the world?" is a silly one - there's no way to quantify across the board. Too many variables. But I think that if you'd walked up to people on the street in the western world and asked them "What's the biggest band on the planet right now?", the answer any time between '87 and now would probably be U2.kagezan1313 wrote: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: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.kagezan1313 wrote: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.ok.computer wrote: DLet'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. |
ANAGRAMER 26.09.2005 14:40 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Dire Straits at that pointZeni 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. |
ANAGRAMER 26.09.2005 14:44 |
According to Brian on Champions of world documentary 'around the time of AOBTD we realised that, for that moment in time, we were probably the biggest band in the world'. I think, in terms of record sales, he would know |
Breadman 28.09.2005 12:14 |
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. PStill, it is nice to contemplate the greatness of my favourite band via such discussion. |
Breadman 28.09.2005 12:53 |
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. |
QUEEN1985 29.09.2005 02:50 |
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.hello. you are allright. usa is a biggest market, and most of album sold of some greatest band (rolling stones, pink floyd, led zeppelin) were sold in usa. but that is not the case of queen, because most of their sells were out of usa. so then if discount that sells in that country (usa), queen sold more copies than that great bands that i mentioned. queen sold more than that bands in a lot of places, like japan and asia, sout america and south africa and maybe in europe. |
tomazrui 30.09.2005 21:49 |
Queen was the bigger band in the world in the era 1981-1986. |