Forum
You guys didn't get it. I'm only compared one eventual new Rolling Stones update number, with the CURRENT Queens CSPC number – 238,637,000 (as of Oct 2017) ! It means, without including the soundtrack for the Bohemian Rhapsody film!
Btw, I watched the Bohemian Rhapsody film. The movie was great.
Btw nr. 2, I don't live on Neptune, but on a planet called Earth. 😉
I certainly didn't get it, I still don't! I can't get why anyone would care about that or even think about it from that perspective, knowing what we know. It's futile.
I actually felt a few months after they'd released Lonesome and Blue, they briefly edged ahead of Queen. I'll not go through it again, so read what I wrote back then https://chartmasters.org/2017/10/best-selling-artists-albums-and-singles-of-all-time/#comment-21565
Needless to say, I don't think they stayed ahead for long, given Queens prowess on streaming platforms, not that the Stones are slouches and then the Bohemian Rhapsody film, which just blew them away from The Stones.
From the two links I didn’t understand why in December 2006 the physical copies sold in the world are 169.100.000, while in December 2016 they become 201.100.000, it seems to me a huge difference.
https://www.ukmix.org/showthread.php?21240-Rolling-Stones-Charts-amp-Sales-History%2Fpage3&fbclid=IwAR3nTduY6QCN-6isM7kNYbxdYIMj0X6vBRhfISvqn4Hga_0tCAdctetplZU (at the bottom of the page at #73)
https://chartmasters.org/2017/10/best-selling-artists-albums-and-singles-of-all-time/17/
As you say, 169.100.000(December 2006) is the number of all cumulative PHYSICAL copies sold. Including: Original Album Sales, Physical Singles Sales, Original Compilation Sales and Box Sets.
The rest of 32. 000.000 (201.100.000 - 169.100.000) - (December 2016) is the cumulative number of all DIGITAL copies sold. Including: Digital Singles Sales, Streaming Sales. Downloading).
From the 169.100.000 are excluded ep, single and video as physical copies, in the same way in the 201.100.000.
The cumulative number of all physical and digital copies sold is instead at this link
https://chartmasters.org/2017/10/best-selling-artists-albums-and-singles-of-all-time/18/
Ok.
You said, you didn’t understand why in December 2006 the physical copies sold in the world are 169.100.000, while in December 2016 they become 201.100.000. It seems a huge difference to you.
But, it's a ten years timeframe. I read somewhere recently that it still sels 7.000 physical copies of Pink Floyd's 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' every week in the world.
Classic rock 'n roll bands still sell albums. So, The Rolling Stones. maybe they really sold that much physical copies from December 2006 - December 2016.
Now that their reissued album reached number 1 in the UK, timing is perfect for an update of the Rolling Stones article, isn't it?
The last surving giants of the rock Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan is still in business for a long time. An update on the boys result would be in place, right?
It can only get closer now! First see if they can catch up with Madonna.
Madonna needs to updated too, she relaased a new album too. She'll be at around 250 million for sure after her update.
I don't see the reason for the downvotes.
Rolling Stones will release new album end of October. Amazon US has pre sold 15 k ++ copies of it. In Japan, UK, Deutche, it is sold big way, too. Would it be a time to update In Stones sales in a new way, include Discogs information. 12 /2016 was last time.
Rolling Stones catalogue sales is very strong. 2-3 million physical copies per year. New box sets, very value items. Rolling Stones is number 1 on the road and will pass Queen if you count the revenue (sic) of the recorded music products. Queen doesn't sell box set at all. Turnover (!)is what matters in business. Not the number of copies and streams. Nothing against of Queen, sorry.
The thing is Mikko, you can't back any of this up. Quite often your assuming and reasoning is remarkably naive and incorrect, like the time you claimed Dylan made £150m from Guns N Roses playing Knocking On Heavens Door live, when in reality it was probably more like £3.5m.
I mean statements like "Queen doesn't sell box sets at all", how can you even think this, let alone say it. Queen have issued and sold numerous Box Sets.
Also, "turnover is what matters in business" and how do you measure this, how do you define this, do you take into consideration that a similar amount of products sold in the 60s/70s would produce considerably less turnover than the same amount of products sold in the 80s/90s. Do you consider royalty rates, who owns sound recording copyrights, musical work copyrights, publisher splits, dealer prices etc etc etc.
On top of all that, turnover is not what matters in business, profit is what matters. Turnover fails to take into consideration, operating costs, manufacturing costs, distribution costs, marketing costs etc
When artist does a tour, they talk about grossing or turnover. Today they don't say that they performed for million people on the tour, but what was the real business. Same in movies box offices gross. And even IFPI announced revenue. Guns'n Roses and 150 million and I doesn't know what you talk about -misunderstanding i quess.
Check chart positions of Queen box sets and Discogs Pages.
Gross is good for press etc but what matters in business is profit.
Bob Dylan/Guns N Roses £150m claim https://chartmasters.org/best-selling-artists-albums-and-singles-of-all-time/#comment-50515
You stated Queen "doesn't sell Box Sets at all", they may not be hugely successful Box Sets but they do release them and they do sell.
I guess you understand that was calculation error, i didn't mean it was the amount due to Dylan, you thinking so? I'm finnish and i speak Finnish and Swedish here. English is not needed here. You are looking for mistakes and been satisfied when you find some.
Look at Discogs for the sales of Queen box sets (collected) and compare it to the Beatles, Dylan, Stones, Floyd, Bowie and chart positions and compare it to the Beatles...
Platinum Collections is not real box sets, the price is less than 20 euros.
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Bowie fanbase is more mature and they often have the money to spend on luxury. The Queen fanbase is in South America and in poorer places and they use streams.
You said "Artist gets publishing royalties for the songs, which are calculated based on the income of the concert. Eg. Guns’n Roses has performed Dylan’s Knockin on heaven’s door 878 times. Average audience size say 35000 persons, ticket price 100 Euros. 3,5 million euros per concert. 878 x 3,5 m Euros= approx 3 billion Euros. 1 song from concert is 1/20 part = 150 million Euros. Much more than streamings"
That isn't a calculation error, it's not understanding how royalties from live performances are calculated.
I'm not looking for mistakes, I'm pointing out that some stuff you say, is just not true or correct, like "Turnover is what matters in business".
Queens fanbase is obviously not just in South America, they are one of the most successful acts in Europe, if not the most, with around 100m albums sold there. They have also sold more physical product than any of those you mention except The Beatles.
You must be a bit childish. Like a small child in the grip of some mistake. I'm not bullshi...r.
Hi, this is great info, thank you. I noticed one issue: in the table presented in the section "Streaming Part 2 – 1965 Satisfaction", the tracks listed for The Rolling Stones, Now! are actually the first 5 tracks from Norah Jones' 2009 album The Fall.
