[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Queen are the 7th biggest selling music artists in the world, the Rolling stones are the 12th. In what way are you thinking they are bigger? Or are you pulling my leg?I'm not really into seeing what band can pee further, but you're wrong on that one - just because Stones headlined US tours, that doesn't make them bigger at all. Do I really have to bring up Queens achievements? I'm sure you already know them....[/QUOTE]
The Rolling Stones are far more successful than Queen.
Combine lp sales and concert tickets. The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen. The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.
Queen was dead in the U.S. after the "Hot Space" tour. They
lost a ton of their audience and with that a ton of money.
They no longer toured here and their lp sales tanked.
Queen wasn't in the same category as the Stones.
BTW, I can't stand the Stones.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
20 years - and Queen came along a fair while after the Stones and outsold them.
Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online.
There's a world outside America you know?
Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online.
There's a world outside America you know?
[QUOTE] [b]jpf wrote:[/b]
The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.[/QUOTE]
By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade.
[QUOTE]The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.[/QUOTE]
Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them.
You are such an idiot.
The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.[/QUOTE]
By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade.
[QUOTE]The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.[/QUOTE]
Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them.
You are such an idiot.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]jpf wrote:[/b]
The Stones play sold out stadium shows all around the world.[/QUOTE]
So did Queen. They were the first band to play the big football stadiums in South America.
[QUOTE]Queen never even headlined a stadium show in the U.S.
The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, then KISS have the most number of RIAA (U.S.) gold lp awards.[/QUOTE]
Worldwide, Queen have sold about 100 million more units than the Stones, and Made In Heaven sold better than any Stones record. Queen have been in the UK album charts longer than the Beatles.
Your research is very, very poor. You can start by realizing there is a world outside of the US.[/QUOTE]
Queen isn't in the same league as the Stones.
The Stones sell out stadiums around the world. Queen could
only play in stadiums in certain parts of the world. And some of those stadium shows were festivals, not individual Queen shows.
Yeah, every band wants to say that they don't need the U.S. audience. A band can do a 100 city U.S. tour and still not hit every major and secondary city. A major, successful U.S. arena tour was out of Queen's grasp after the "Hot Space" tour. Queen blew a good thing. And they never got it back.
And while they were playing a short stadium tour in South America, they couldn't even get promoters to sponser them for a proper U.S. tour after the "Hot Space" tour.
Queen was never on the same level as the Stones in the U.S.
BTW, just because Queen has been in the U.K. record charts longer than The Beatles, that must mean they're more successful than The Beatles, correct?
And as I stated before, I can't stand The Stones.
[QUOTE] [b]jpf wrote:[/b]
The Stones play sold out stadium shows all around the world.[/QUOTE]
So did Queen. They were the first band to play the big football stadiums in South America.
[QUOTE]Queen never even headlined a stadium show in the U.S.
The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, then KISS have the most number of RIAA (U.S.) gold lp awards.[/QUOTE]
Worldwide, Queen have sold about 100 million more units than the Stones, and Made In Heaven sold better than any Stones record. Queen have been in the UK album charts longer than the Beatles.
Your research is very, very poor. You can start by realizing there is a world outside of the US.[/QUOTE]
Queen isn't in the same league as the Stones.
The Stones sell out stadiums around the world. Queen could
only play in stadiums in certain parts of the world. And some of those stadium shows were festivals, not individual Queen shows.
Yeah, every band wants to say that they don't need the U.S. audience. A band can do a 100 city U.S. tour and still not hit every major and secondary city. A major, successful U.S. arena tour was out of Queen's grasp after the "Hot Space" tour. Queen blew a good thing. And they never got it back.
And while they were playing a short stadium tour in South America, they couldn't even get promoters to sponser them for a proper U.S. tour after the "Hot Space" tour.
Queen was never on the same level as the Stones in the U.S.
BTW, just because Queen has been in the U.K. record charts longer than The Beatles, that must mean they're more successful than The Beatles, correct?
And as I stated before, I can't stand The Stones.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
ROCK IN RIO - Queen headlined that.[/QUOTE]
Rock In Rio was a festival.
KISS played to more people on their own (not a festival)
at Maracana Stadium in Rio.
ROCK IN RIO - Queen headlined that.[/QUOTE]
Rock In Rio was a festival.
KISS played to more people on their own (not a festival)
at Maracana Stadium in Rio.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Well said. Queen are listed first and seventh place in terms of best selling album in the UK (as I am totally sure you know)Stones don't even get a look in there.And as a live act? Stones and Queen? I know I'm not talking crap here when I say that Queen are regarded as the best live act the world ever had. And no, that's not the sound of someone who's simply a fan - it's generally the way it's seen.[/QUOTE]
"best live act" is just your opinion. It has nothing to do with ticket sales.
Well said. Queen are listed first and seventh place in terms of best selling album in the UK (as I am totally sure you know)Stones don't even get a look in there.And as a live act? Stones and Queen? I know I'm not talking crap here when I say that Queen are regarded as the best live act the world ever had. And no, that's not the sound of someone who's simply a fan - it's generally the way it's seen.[/QUOTE]
"best live act" is just your opinion. It has nothing to do with ticket sales.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
I'll give credit where credit's due - the Stones are a great band. Aftermath through Exile are stellar records, and with Mick Taylor on board they hit their peak as a live act.
Sure, the Stones outsold Queen in the US, but everywhere else in the world Queen are the bigger and more influential band.
That said, I really don't like it when music becomes a popularity contest or a game of numbers. But I do feel the need to chime in when someone starts spouting gibberish that has no basis in reality.[/QUOTE]
I think the Stones are a crappy band. Can't stand the singer. The other musicians do nothing for me.
With that said, the Stones are a far bigger band then Queen.
I'll give credit where credit's due - the Stones are a great band. Aftermath through Exile are stellar records, and with Mick Taylor on board they hit their peak as a live act.
Sure, the Stones outsold Queen in the US, but everywhere else in the world Queen are the bigger and more influential band.
That said, I really don't like it when music becomes a popularity contest or a game of numbers. But I do feel the need to chime in when someone starts spouting gibberish that has no basis in reality.[/QUOTE]
I think the Stones are a crappy band. Can't stand the singer. The other musicians do nothing for me.
With that said, the Stones are a far bigger band then Queen.
You're right - Queen aren't in the same league as the Stones - Queen are in a bigger one. I'll say it again - Queen come within the top 7 selling worldwide acts - Stones don't. They come in lower category - the 12th place.
So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide.
Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other.
So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide.
Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
20 years - and Queen came along a fair while after the Stones and outsold them.Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online. There's a world outside America you know?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Queen's been making loads of money on concert tickets and t-shirts sales since 1991.
The band was dead in the water after the "Magic" tour.
Lots of lost revenue right there.
20 years - and Queen came along a fair while after the Stones and outsold them.Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online. There's a world outside America you know?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Queen's been making loads of money on concert tickets and t-shirts sales since 1991.
The band was dead in the water after the "Magic" tour.
Lots of lost revenue right there.
Troll elsewhere dude.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]jpf wrote:[/b]
The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.[/QUOTE]
By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade.
[QUOTE]The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.[/QUOTE]
Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them.
You are such an idiot.[/QUOTE]
A 50 year career making huge amounts of money by touring
vs. not even a 20 year career. You do the math.
Queen didn't play in 196 countries. They couldn't even get a tour in one of the biggest countries in the world after they pissed off their core audience.
You can also fuck yourself asshole.
[QUOTE] [b]jpf wrote:[/b]
The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.[/QUOTE]
By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade.
[QUOTE]The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.[/QUOTE]
Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them.
You are such an idiot.[/QUOTE]
A 50 year career making huge amounts of money by touring
vs. not even a 20 year career. You do the math.
Queen didn't play in 196 countries. They couldn't even get a tour in one of the biggest countries in the world after they pissed off their core audience.
You can also fuck yourself asshole.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
You're right - Queen aren't in the same league as the Stones - Queen are in a bigger one. I'll say it again - Queen come within the top 7 selling worldwide acts - Stones don't. They come in lower category - the 12th place.So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide.Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other.[/QUOTE]
Rolling Stones > Queen
Sorry that hurts your feelings.
You're right - Queen aren't in the same league as the Stones - Queen are in a bigger one. I'll say it again - Queen come within the top 7 selling worldwide acts - Stones don't. They come in lower category - the 12th place.So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide.Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other.[/QUOTE]
Rolling Stones > Queen
Sorry that hurts your feelings.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Troll elsewhere dude.[/QUOTE]
I'll post where I please.
Troll elsewhere dude.[/QUOTE]
I'll post where I please.
Obvious troll is obvious troll.
Laters.
Laters.