ABBA vs Queen

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or Zeppilin[/QUOTE]

Really, even in the UK?

I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts.

In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story.
[/QUOTE]

In sales terms Queen's big UK album as we all know is greatest hits. Take away the sales figures for that album and they'd slip a long way down the list.

In the States NOTW was very big but it wasn't a Stones or Led Zeppilin sized release. The singles on The Game gave them another huge push, but they never rose above Arena level ticket sales in America, The Stones, Floyd and Zeppilin outshone the completely plus a plethora of American bands at the time.

In the UK Hyde Park was huge, but it was free, the next time they played outdoor UK shows (Hot Space) did not sellout, it took lLive Aid and the following years Magic tour to put them in the big league in the UK

The media seems, in general back then and now to an extent to regard the other bang names as somehow being more genuinely big. Certainly when Zeppilin announced their o2 show the world media went nuts with the news and the possibility of a tour to follow. When Queen came out of the shadows in 2005 the news did not compare, as with every Stones tour that has been announced since the mid 80's Queen just don't seem to be quite at the same level

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
ABBA are already getting more publicity than the Queeen tracks got by trailing their new (and this is brand new, not archive) tracks 7 months in advance[/QUOTE]

yes but we must remember a little detail... ABBA are all still alive so they don't need to search in the archives...
Obviously Queen can write new material but who sing it?
Adam? Could be great...
A sort of Queen + Friends with various singers like Elton? Funny but for me not.
Or Simply a new Queen album with just Bri & Rog singing...
Where are the others archives tracks?
I mean My Secret Fantasy, Face It Alone and few more? Today with modern tecnology they can do miracles using bits recorded by Freddie

I agree with Queen being massive in Britain but only in terms of hits compilations.

Go compare!

Compilations:

- Queen GH: 6.1 M
- ABBA Gold: 5.3 M
- Queen GHII: 3.9 M
- Madonna's TIC: 3.7 M
- Beatles 1: 3.2 M
- ABBA's GH: 2.6 M

Non-compilation albums:

- Sgt Pepper: 5.2 M
- 21: 4.9 M
- Morning Glory: 4.7 M
- Thriller (aka HS Mk II according to Dr May): 4.4 M
- Dark Side: 4.3 M
...
- Made in Heaven: 2.4 M
- A Night at the Opera: 0.3 M
- News of the World: 0.1 M
- The Cosmos Rocks: Less than 0.06 M

In other words:

- For every 61 people in Britain who've got 'Greatest Hits', only one has bought 'News of the World'.

- For every person in the UK who's bought 'A Night at the Opera', 14 people have bought 'Dark Side', 15 people have bought the Oasis record and 17 people have bought 'Sgt Pepper' (you know, The Beatles' very own 'ANatO')

- For every person in the UK who's bought 'Cosmos Rocks', there are at least 86 who've bought 'Sgt Pepper'.

A sale is a sale! Like I said earlier in the thread though - if you asked a man on the street to name a song off any of those albums, they'd get most on QGH1 + 2 and Abba Gold. I know this because I watch Pointless

[QUOTE] [b]RMTAYLOR_1981 wrote:[/b]

calm down before use words like "fucking" and "idiot" to people. In italy everyone knows 20 queen songs and maybe 3 by Abba.
Cute little band compared to Queen in terms of versatility and musical range , even if they sold hundreds million[/QUOTE]

I agree

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or Zeppilin[/QUOTE]

Really, even in the UK?

I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts.

In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story.
[/QUOTE]

In sales terms Queen's big UK album as we all know is greatest hits. Take away the sales figures for that album and they'd slip a long way down the list.

In the States NOTW was very big but it wasn't a Stones or Led Zeppilin sized release. The singles on The Game gave them another huge push, but they never rose above Arena level ticket sales in America, The Stones, Floyd and Zeppilin outshone the completely plus a plethora of American bands at the time.

In the UK Hyde Park was huge, but it was free, the next time they played outdoor UK shows (Hot Space) did not sellout, it took lLive Aid and the following years Magic tour to put them in the big league in the UK

The media seems, in general back then and now to an extent to regard the other bang names as somehow being more genuinely big. Certainly when Zeppilin announced their o2 show the world media went nuts with the news and the possibility of a tour to follow. When Queen came out of the shadows in 2005 the news did not compare, as with every Stones tour that has been announced since the mid 80's Queen just don't seem to be quite at the same level

[/QUOTE]

You do know that Queen are in the top 10 or 20 of the best selling artists of all time globally right? They sold more records than The Who and Hendrix I believe....

I think some are missing the point of this topic. Sure, sales are important, but you can sell lots and be average. Like Bon Jovi. The point surely is that Stones, ABBA, Queen etc have all sold a lot of records but when something new is discovered or released only some bands get lots of media attention. ABBA, for example. And Led Zep, Pink Floyd, or the Beatles. Whereas the announcement of Let Me in Your Heart Again and the others was mostly a damp squib. That's interesting. Maybe there is a "cool" hierarchy, or it's about the amount of respect a band gets. Some of the biggest bands originated in the 1960s whereas Queen was a "second tier" 1970s band. But that doesn't explain everything. It's an odd one.

Holly, The Stones have their classic lineup intact. When was their last big hit? They put out plenty of albums since their heyday. The Who put out their Hard wire CD with no big hits from it. I know some of you don't want too admit it, but Mercury was the star of Queen. Without him people aren't buying the new record, like Cosmos Rockin... Didn't Innuendo top the Charts in almost every country outside of America? How about MIH?.....i also agree Record sales don't mean greatness. Bon Jovi I was a good example someone mentioned as average, but sold a tone of records.

Again, obsession with sales figures won;t explain this. Fred sung on Let Me In Your Heart again, Love Kills etc., so if it;s the fact that the original line up isn;t there any more, and original member Fred sung on those songs, why didn't it sell? But sales is only one factor. Why didn't it get more media attention?

ps for me, the classic Stones line up has Mick Taylor in it.

pps it was me who mentioned Bon Jovi! :O

Marketing is important. Queen couldn‘t really promote the new songs, because Freddie wasn‘t there. So it was impossible to perform these songs on TV for instance. They tried a bit with Lambert singing „Love kills“. I thought, he was good, but it‘s not the same.

And maybe just an EP with the new songs would have helped too. That whole „Queen forever“ album/greatest ballads -thing led to people not really recognizing, that there were new songs hidden.

Plus, the songs weren‘t that good. They were scratching the barrel. And, if I remember it correctly, they weren‘t allowed to release the better song with Michael Jackson, because MJ management didn‘t allow it.

Interestingly, I'm not sure I remember much interest in the new MJ solo album a couple of years ago? Perhaps with some acts the nostalgia factor is too great - No one wants new stuff, just new ways to consume the old stuff. Queen included.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Again, obsession with sales figures won;t explain this. Fred sung on Let Me In Your Heart again, Love Kills etc., so if it;s the fact that the original line up isn;t there any more, and original member Fred sung on those songs, why didn't it sell? But sales is only one factor. Why didn't it get more media attention?

ps for me, the classic Stones line up has Mick Taylor in it.

pps it was me who mentioned Bon Jovi! :O
[/QUOTE]
Yea, but let Me In Your Heart and love kills weren't new songs. The Jackson track was weak. Worse than the Mr. Bad Guy version. ABBA is recording new songs with the original lineup. Big difference. If Mercury was alive and they recorded a new album it would get media attention and top the Charts in most countries. America I'm not so sure.

[QUOTE] [b]Sealion wrote:[/b]

Marketing is important. Queen couldn‘t really promote the new songs, because Freddie wasn‘t there. So it was impossible to perform these songs on TV for instance. They tried a bit with Lambert singing „Love kills“. I thought, he was good, but it‘s not the same.

And maybe just an EP with the new songs would have helped too. That whole „Queen forever“ album/greatest ballads -thing led to people not really recognizing, that there were new songs hidden.

Plus, the songs weren‘t that good. They were scratching the barrel. And, if I remember it correctly, they weren‘t allowed to release the better song with Michael Jackson, because MJ management didn‘t allow it.[/QUOTE]
Glad you mentioned that about Jackson....they didn't allow the better version of the song because they realized how stronger Freddie's voice was than Jacksons.

just goes to show how important Freddie was in Queen.
Without Freddie that band is limp, and has no charisma whatsoever.

And yet Free as a Bird by the Beatles, sung by long-dead John Lennon, got much media attention and won a Grammy.