Forum
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.
