Dan. Lol. Queen is not even nearly as big as The Beatles at their peak. The Beatles released all of their albums pre 1970. Back then the music market was very2 small. Even big stars such as Barbra Streisand would be lucky to sell 3,4 million per album. Queen had a much longer career than Beatles and they produced albums all the way through the 90s. During the 80s and 90s the music market was booming and they definitely benefited from that. Having said that their total album sales is still almost half as small as the Beatles. I dont know about Queen nor Beatles sales in Europe. Maybe Queen is bigger there. But all throughout the whole world Queen sales is not even comparable to the beatles.

True but it doesn't feel like rock. 😕

Fix. Lol. Lets try math, shall we?
The Beatles have a HUGE lead in the US (168,27 million vs 44,44 million) - 123.83m gap.
Worldwide: 405,737,000 - 238,637,000 = 167,100,000
As you can see, America is mostly responsible for the big lead (on anyone, not just Queen).

I am more excited with post 2000 and i hope it's next next week

Great list Nuclear Dolphin!

You should add Dr. Dre 2001 (1999) and Radiohead Pablo Honey (1992).

I'm sure you know, but using straight forward streams from albums has it's limitations. A track like Nirvana's All Apologies has about 18 mio plays from In Utero, but more than 48 mio plays in total. I'm sure there are many other examples.

TC hi, you're right about Nirvana. Its funny I just did the streaming total for 'Live unplugged' and the streams just from that album are 299,934,867 and Sublimes self titled album from 1996 is at 456,905,344. So I guess those totals would actually be a lot higher. Dr Dre's 2001 album which I didn't put on the list because I thought it was released in 2001 is actually at 921,473,864, which is unbelievable. Pablo honey is at 247,450,382.

Thanks. A few weeks and 2001 will reach one billion!

As I have said. The Beatles released most of their albums pre 1970s. Back when album sales were pathetic. For them to achieve 70 million ++ album sales back then is like selling 200 million records in the 80s-90s when the market really boom, in which Queen did made a lot of albums during these 2 decades. Therefore Queen is in no way bigger than the Beatles.

I completely disagree with that statement. The Beatles had:
1) not too much competition. Yeah, there were the Stones, The Who and a few others, but The Beatles ruled the charts. There was no one and nothing like them at the time.
The 70s were far harder to penetrate, you had to face LZ, Pink Floyd, RS, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Elton John, Aerosmith and TONS of other artists.
2) What you're saying about the 60s/80s sales proportions sounds like nonsense. The Beatles started 10 years+ earlier, hence they had 10+ more years to sell records.
For example, the White Album sold over 3.3 million copies to stores within the first four days of the album's release. That's in the US alone, 1968. That's more than entire album runs of some of the Stones albums, released in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

"16. Limp Bizkit – Chocolate starfish – 307,648,414"

Starfish is from October 2000, so not really before 2000.
Like Hybrid Theory btw. Released one week later that album would probably rank high on this list if valid!

Apologies, yes you're right. I muddled it up with the previous album. 😕

Dre's figures are outstanding. When I see results of 2001 or All Eyez on Me I always think about Beck's Odelay. This is a very good album for sure, but it still always amazes me to see people that blindly repeat critics' choices put this album as the absolute 90s classic behind OK Computer, when All Eyez On Me, released the same year, tops it in every possible point of view. Bigger upon release, much larger lasting appeal, better rated relatively to their respective genres, much stronger impact on the culture of its time, more relevant / influent for the music industry. The same goes for 2001.

NB: Make Yourself by Incubus may make your list and Slipknot debut is close.

Hi Fix,

I saw nobody claiming that Queen is "bigger than the Beatles".

We can't simply say that "their 70m were like 200m later", for several big reasons:
1) Well, first, because they haven't sold 70m albums during the 60s, I haven't the exact number in mind right now but it is more like 40-50m.
2) Had the Beatles sold 200m during their first decade by starting later, they would have sold much less compilations / reissues of CDs in later years, so you can't add those supposed sales without taking off the part they gained thanks to those low 60s sales
3) Had the Beatles started 10 years later, they would have sold more albums but also way, way less singles.
4) Had the Beatles started 10 years later, they would have got 10 less years to sell.
5) Had the Beatles started 10 years later, they would have share TV / Radio / Promotion times / budgets with many more artists, considerably limiting their initial impact.

For artists that had their legacy settled for decades, the CSPC formula provides a very good picture of their respective popularity. Advantages / disadvantages of formats / markets have for long been linearized over their multiple records. It is correct to say that the Beatles are much bigger than Queen in the US, just like it is correct to say that Queen are fairly close to the Beatles elsewhere.

MJD hi, yes there are quite a few I'm sure. I'd love you to do a top 100.

They smash the Beatles in a lot of European countries.

4 years later some things have change a lot. Even with the includs of Dr. Dre. and the Peppers, Abbey Road would happen to being 41 to almost in the top 10, winning 30 positions, and the white album would be also in this list very well positioned. Rumours also have gained much atraction, overtaking even Thriller and is close to Nevermind to the top. By other hand, Bob Marley albums seems now weakier, his albums would be been much lower with an update, or out.