Forum
If you want to equalize a digital download to an album sale, then Wikipedia is the place to go to
Clockingbell said it perfectly. If you want to put on the same level someone who goes to a record shop to buy a full-length album with another one who sits behind his smartphone to download a single track, then go to read and believe the Wikipedia article "List of best-selling music artists". But here at Chartmasters different formats are treated differently. I guess it's simply logical, isn't it?
What are "pure copies" for you? You seem to have misunderstood my previous post. It doesn't make sense to discuss about "selling records, copies etc." Once again: There are different formats: physical album, physical single, download, stream etc. Do you want to lump everything one on one together and then talk about "records sold"? I'll say it again because it seems you haven't understood yet:
Different formats must be treated differently!
Queen have sold far more physical albums than Taylor Swift, who in turn has sold more downloads and streams. Physical album sales are worth more than physical singles, which in turn are worth more than single track downloads. So, it makes no sense to lump everything together and then (like you) talk about "records, copies etc. sold". But different formats can be weighted (as is done here in Chartmasters) then you get a value of Equivalent Album Sales (EAS). At the moment Queen have about 278M EAS while Taylor Swift has about 150M EAS.
To use EAS is indeed indicative of an artist's success relative to other artists. If you continue to talk about "records, copies sold" without differentiating them, then it's completely meaningless in terms of analyzing an artist's commercial success!
Okay.
What about US sales? Does anyone know if they passed LED Zeppelin in sales(worldwide)?
As of now (07/04/2023): Queen vs. Led Zeppelin
Pure Studio Albums: 90,230,000 vs. 141,500,000
Other LPs (EAS): 139,348,000 vs. 51,200,000
Physical Singles (units sold): 49,960,000 vs. 6,350,000
Digital Singles (units sold): 59,650,000 vs. 32,030,000
Streams (EAS): 25,278,000 vs. 7,484,000
Total EAS: 278,795,000 vs. 206,897,000
Therefore, Queen have passed Led Zeppelin by total equivalent album sales (EAS).
Regarding to your other question, as of 2020 Queen had sold about 47,027,000 pure albums in US while it's obviously that Led Zeppelin did sell their biggest share of albums in the US (in the respective article there are no information about regional numbers). Hence, Led Zeppelin have sold more pure albums in US than Queen, which is why along with The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin are considered more successful -> important than Queen by American market focused journals like Rolling Stone. Note the name of the magazine, from which a clear subjective bias can be discerned, also in favor of a singer-songwriter who wrote "Like A Rolling Stone".
okay because many lz fans say something different and just seem to cling to the fact that lz was or is more successful, they seem to despise queen by saying that lz sold more records. that must mean that they outsold them in pure copies as well(178 million vs 182 as of 2016)
Worldwide Queen is bigger then Led Zeppelin.
In US Led Zeppelin is more powerful then Queen .
Remember, fans are always claiming their personal favorites are the best, most influential, meaningful, important, successful artists at least within their respective genres. There are individual opinions and there are statistical facts. So, the fundamental question should actually always be clarified in advance.
At some point it was true that Led Zeppelin sold more albums than Queen but not anymore, especially since the movie. And of course Queen are much bigger when it comes to singles and streaming.
"In US Led Zeppelin is more powerful then Queen ."
For what it's worth, 69% of Americans have a positive opinion of Queen against 68% for Led Zeppelin (Yougov).
But their chart numbers are pretty disappointing. They only had 3 no 1 hits when Freddie was still alive(Bohemian Rhapsody, Under Pressure, Innuendo)
Queen have had (I guess) five UK number one singles, but nine or ten UK number one albums, which is more important because success with albums is more sustainable.
Having one or several number one singles is a nice media boost for an artist for a certain moment. But charts, especially those for single hits, are no reference for ultimately commercial success.
If you look to chart positions, these are always snapshots relative to what also happens to be in the charts.
You mentioned Led Zeppelin who haven't got a significant number of highly charted singles, similar with Pink Floyd (7th most selling artist worldwide) or Metallica.
So, if you want to know how successful an artist is/has been, look to the units of albums, singles, downloads and streaming sold, instead of chart positions.
