Stones and AC/DC - my favourite bands. But there's something that lets me thinking:

The Stones released "A Bigger Bang" that wasn't that well received neither by Stones fans nor by the "noral" music buyers. And they hardly sold out stadiums throughout Europe.
AC/DC's new album makes it to no.1 in the charts in shortest time and their European Tour is sold out within a couple of minutes.
The Stones' last single was hardly played on German radio, AC/DC's current single is played over and over again.

I know that "ABB Tour" is the most successful tour in terms of income of all times but that's got something to do with the high tickets prices and not the number of people attending the concerts - this number decreased.

So, what do you think? Why is AC/DC a bigger seller than the Stones?

1. Ticket prices
2. Black Ice (well, about 3/5ths of it) is a pretty good record

Quote
yorkshirestone
1. Ticket prices
2. Black Ice (well, about 3/5ths of it) is a pretty good record

The same here - ticket prices. Too high. Compared to AC-DC, Stones have toured over and over the last 10 years - so people have had enough.

The CD could have been 6 songs less. The timing of publishing was bad.

They could have published a rocker as the single instead of a ballad.

Stones PR work is very bad. Seems like they use a newbee as their promotion manager. Never seen as bad promotion as the Stones do.

I have seen both bands in Hockenheim 2003. I was very curious about AC/DC. They delivered a Big Hits show complete with bells and pants down. Very impressive for a newcomer but the music became a bore.
So, me and my best mate (who is musicwise fully skilled and a very-very-critical-Stones-"fan"-type) looked at each other and agreed:
The difference between the Stones' and the AC/DC
(at least, live set in Hockenheim, and, I'm afraid, general-catalogue-wise spoken even more...)
then was: AC/DC got 2 decent songs and the Stones 20 decent ones...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-18 22:31 by JJHMick.

Impossible to compare em in truth

AC/DC are still a rock n roll band, the Stones are more of a touring cabaret act

I prefer to remember the latter how they used to be

I prefer to remember the former with Bon Scott on vocals.

Please understand that the Stones were playing stadiums at a high price tag. Where AC DC is playing inside arenas for a much lower price tag.

If both tours played at the exact same places and were priced the exact same. Dont fool yourself....The Stones are the greatest.

They're both awesome badass bands....

personally, i classify ACDC as harder rock, but not as talented a band. Songwriting and sound variation are clearly better with the stones.

Also, I would say that A Bigger Bang is better album than Black Ice. Thoughts?

I really don't have anything with AC-DC the only song I like of them is "Black Betty"

__________________________

Quote
stonesriff
Please understand that the Stones were playing stadiums at a high price tag. Where AC DC is playing inside arenas for a much lower price tag.

If both tours played at the exact same places and were priced the exact same. Dont fool yourself....The Stones are the greatest.

Only insane people like you keep saying the stones are the greatest.
they used to be amazing , but they're not so good now , you should see how many hundreds of thousands of bands play better than the stones.
the stones ain't the only thing in the world , you sound like my sister " Oh Hannah Montana is the greatest!!" just because she's the greatest and she's the greatest , that's the same with you , " the stones are the greatest!"
i cant say acdc is better than them , they're both good , but none of the both are so talented.
they are famous in the same amount of fans , they've been good rockers since a long time ago , but also you should think of other stuff .
You sound like sick 5-year old girls discussing at school.

Quote
mexicostone

Quote
stonesriff
Please understand that the Stones were playing stadiums at a high price tag. Where AC DC is playing inside arenas for a much lower price tag.

If both tours played at the exact same places and were priced the exact same. Dont fool yourself....The Stones are the greatest.

Only insane people like you keep saying the stones are the greatest.
they used to be amazing , but they're not so good now , you should see how many hundreds of thousands of bands play better than the stones.
the stones ain't the only thing in the world , you sound like my sister " Oh Hannah Montana is the greatest!!" just because she's the greatest and she's the greatest , that's the same with you , " the stones are the greatest!"
i cant say acdc is better than them , they're both good , but none of the both are so talented.
they are famous in the same amount of fans , they've been good rockers since a long time ago , but also you should think of other stuff .
You sound like sick 5-year old girls discussing at school.

troll alert

Ac/Dc isn't a Vegas Walking Circus. They manage to maintain the essence of Rock N Roll, even though they pretty much do they same thing - same formula evry time they crawl out of hiatus. The Stones have cashed with the Steel Wheels formula for a while now, they have tried to do some good albums and they also havent done shit either.

If the Stones trim down their stage production the tickets would go down. Also if they reduce the band personel and a more rock n roll or garage band vibe, then you could compare. I also think the audiences are different.

I would say the Stones are more diverse, however the diversity they offer besides that good ole rock n roll they also do so well pretty much sucks. A Bigger Bang album could nt fool us fans, its not original its not unique - its mediocre at best ( A Bunch of Stones hybrid songs from other Stones hybrid tunes patched up together). I think Mick Jagger tries too hard.

The thing with AC/DC is that great sound and rythm. It hits you in the spinal chord and once it gets you, you pretty much take the ride through whole album even if its same freaking chords on every song.

Great bands with similar foundations. Their last number one album was Tattoo You, an album of outtakes and stuff left on the can to redo. Great work.

Mick Keith write some songs , get a new producer. Get Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor back.

Oh thats another thing. AC/DC line up unchanged. Malcolm plays a vicious rythm guitar with Phil the groove Rudd. Angus doesnt miss a note.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 02:40 by Loudei.

I havent hear anyhting fun by them since Bon Scott.

thats because Bon was a genius

things that need to happen to right the world :

1. The Stones to retire. All things have to end, and its been long enough
2. Keef to get the Wino's back together and get back to playing music
3. The Wino's to go on tour with AC/DC
4. Mick to ditch the syrup (talking of which, anyone see the shocking one sported by mr Wood in the tabloids yesterday? .. OUCH)

its 2009

It all has to do with the catchiness of either record.
Are the songs good? Are they memorable or forgettable?

This is the chief determining factor above all else, in my opinion.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
aerorock
They're both awesome badass bands....

personally, i classify ACDC as harder rock, but not as talented a band. Songwriting and sound variation are clearly better with the stones.

Also, I would say that A Bigger Bang is better album than Black Ice. Thoughts?

I'm with Joe Perry (aerorock) on this one.

"No Anchovies, Please"

You can compare them on so many levels so it's difficult to make one statement about it. But it's quite interesting to compare both there latest album/tour.

I think ABB is pretty much the same for the stones as Black Ice is for AC/DC but Black Ice is selling far better.
The ABB tour was hugely succesfull in tickets sold and the only had some problems in Europe with filling up the stadiums which was a shame IMO.
The Black Ice tour is hugely succesfull, they sell out immediately and there seems to be a good hype about the tour.

I think the succes of the tour is bigger for AC/DC. This partly because of the time there was in between there tours of course but that also makes the hype that is so great to have.
Music wise AC/DC hasn't slipped at all, or at least that i know, and the stones of course have slipped a lot, partly due to Keiths accident so it's still great they even perform.

Cheers,
Wuudy

I can't stand AC/DC's singer...I'm close to be a far better rocksinger myself..

2 1 2 0

AC/DC is selling better than the Stones because they actually have someone who can play guitar. No back up singers, horns, or pianos either and they have all stopped drinking.

I don't have a clue of what happened this time around.

In the past 20 years or more - let's say from fly on the wall onwards - AC DC's releases were not exactly an event and stadiums did not sell out easily.

I don't think the latest release cold ice is any better than the past 3 / 4 cds- yet bingo! And sold out tour too.

Guess the thread should be renamed Columbia Records v. Virgin ...

C

Quote
andy js
Mick to ditch the syrup (talking of which, anyone see the shocking one sported by mr Wood in the tabloids yesterday? .. OUCH)

yes- completely ridiculous

Quote
liddas
I don't have a clue of what happened this time around.

In the past 20 years or more - let's say from fly on the wall onwards - AC DC's releases were not exactly an event and stadiums did not sell out easily.

I don't think the latest release cold ice is any better than the past 3 / 4 cds- yet bingo! And sold out tour too.

Guess the thread should be renamed Columbia Records v. Virgin ...

C

It's interesting indeed. For some reason AC/DC got very popular by the mainstream. I saw some stuff on the internet and the televison that a lot of "famous" people wear a lot of AC/DC t-shirts in public.

Cheers,
Wuudy

This is not about AC/DC but more of the split between the Stones and the 'rest'.

Some time ago there was a TV show where Finnish promoter was interviewed, and he was talking about Metallica's concerts of the following summer. They are going to do two arena shows in Helsinki that, obviously, were sold out within few minutes. (To open up the context: hard rock bands are very popular in Finland - any old band like Iron Maiden, AC/DC or Metallica could easily sell out stadiums, as they have done many times - but Metallica wanted to this arena thing this time around (like The Stones with No Security, I guess). Any of new relaeses of these bands are sure gold record and number ones in Finnish charts, and so on. I don't go for sociological reasons why this is the case here...)

Anyway, what was striking in that interview was that the band (Metallica) had demanded a certain limit in ticket prices - that it is suited for their casual fans. The promoter said that they could have EASILY sold out the arenas with double prices, but that they couldn't due this restrictions! This is totally different concept and strategy the Stones/Cohl has now used for ages. The Stones seem to have the idea that if the gig is sold out too easily that means that the tickets have gone under their market alue. And that, of course, is 'bad' business. The result is that the Stones do not fill the stadiums anymore, but still make more money than anyone. They seemingly have accepted this nature of the game.

Remember the stories of Rolling Stones biographies when their tickets were sold out in minutes, that there were millions demands of them in post, etc? That was also the time when the Stones looked cool in eyes of the main stream younger generations - seemingly because they were within the reach of their ideology and economical situation - you know, going to the concerts by their own decision, without being forced there by their wealthy dads and grand-dads.

I think all of these 'younger' (compared to the Stones), still hard rocking bands from AC/DC to Aerosmith to Iron Maiden to Metallica do still have that kind of contact to the younger mainstream audiences. They probably respected certain kind of audiences more than our rich rock aristocrats. I am not trying to intentionally bash the Stones, but just explaining the very situation I've wittnessed now for a quite long time. These AC/DCs and all - of who I don't care personally nothing at all - seem to have maintained the ideology the Stones used to have (until 1982?) when they actually still clicked with the big masses of young people.

Of course, one could say that The Stones have always been driven by money. Yes, that is true, but also in that section have some crucial differences happened during the years. Probably in 1989 they understood that the best income for them would be turning into a nostalgy act, and try to reach the people who are in their best years of income. This potential audience was later backed up with business corporations, whose bosses, most likely, were old Stones fans -> £££££££$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (I think the last time Jagger tried to reach the young audiences was his unfortunate 80's solo career that turned to be a farce... After that he KNEW what was his status like, and where his potential fans are.)

We - most of us are more or less 'middle aged' people or die-hard Stones fans - might not sometimes recognize the safe and sure Vegas entertainment nature of our heroes, but I think the younger generations are not so stupid to NOT see the actual nature of the ame. The Stones, and everything they represent, does not mean anything cool to them, quite contrary. "It's Only Rock and Roll, But I Like It" is a kind of sad and corny cliche these days... you know, to them they are as cool as Elvis was once to the reflective eyes when he went to second class Hollywood movies and turned out to be a fat Las Vegas act. To most of the people who attend rock concerts these days the boring cliche "king of rock and roll" has as much relevance as another cliche "the greatest rock and roll band of the world".

I think the example of AC/DC, Metallica, etc. is good reminder that what the Stones do does need to be the only policy to do things. There are others, but The Stones have decided to follow the stragey of 'maximise all the profits, and little more, if possible',

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 14:27 by Doxa.

Once agin the same debate.

There are many artist that sell better than the Stones. What I try to understand is why this should be important to me, a plain and simple Stones fan. Should I say to my self, Gee, this years biggest seller is "whatever" so I SHOULD like them more than the Stones?

If you like both bands (not may case at all) go an have fun and like them as you which, one more than the other on any given moment of your life, fine by me.

But what do you expect from us?

Doxa:

to be fair, my ABB ticket was only 15 euros more expensive than the AC/DC one (75), and the production of the Stones show can't compare with AC/DC.

Last time I saw AC/DC the ticket was 28 euros.

As for Metallica being "fan friendly", go ask the same question to the filesharing communities ...

C

Quote
Loudei
If the Stones trim down their stage production the tickets would go down.

There's no link between the two.

Think back a decade to the tour when the Stones DID reduce their overheads (ie, playing indoors, more modest staging, smaller crew etc) namely the No Security tour - and that was the first tour when the ticket prices went through the roof.


Doxa - as usual - is totally correct. Unlike a lot of bands, the Stones arent targeting the people who have a big appreciation of their music. They're targetting a specific audience demographic based on the premise that those people are at an age where they are more likely to have a large disposable income. Regardless of whether they know or care much about the band's music or not. Which explains the increased 'greatest hits' format of the show in recent tours.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 15:25 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Think back a decade to the tour when the Stones DID reduce their overheads (ie, playing indoors, more modest staging, smaller crew etc) namely the No Security tour - and that was the first tour when the ticket prices went through the roof.

I don't have the exact numbers but in long run, and from a economical, Cohlian point of view, NO SECURITY tour was - unfortunately - a clever business move. They put the prices to a new level, and it - strangely enough - felt somehow justified to the 'intime' nature of the tour... It is a privilege to see The Stones so 'private', and people were willing to pay the prices. Then, in a next time around (FORTY LICKS tour), they kept the tickets in a standard the audiences were used to pay during the NO SECURITY tour, but were playing stadiums instead. It - strangely enough - felt 'natural', if not even justified. Bloody clever business. Almost like no one had realized how much the prices were bigger than just few years earlier during BRIDGES TO BABYLON stadium tour.

Well, that was a American experience, of which I don't have a personal experience. But what I take to be the worst developement in The Stones concert experiences from my personal point of view is the tendency to seat all the fields in stadiums. This seem to kill all the last feelings of bigger collectiveness and involvement in a rock concert when you can not even dance or move around, etc. All you can do is a bit clap of your hands, and 'enjoy' the show. I understand that it is a a business decision (and adapted from America to Europe if I'm right): those standing areas were the cheapest ones, but nowadays they can ask the biggest prices from very same area, And it is much more 'safe and sure' for their targeted audience as well. But I take it to kill the atmosphere.

The last time I went to see the Stones I tentatively picked up a concert where the field was still 'free' (El Ejido, Spain). I wish I'd been in Isle of Wight; the clips of the concert seem are exciting ones, and The Stones really make the people - surprisinly young - move (like they used to.) That's a rare scene in a Rolling Stones concert, even though it is common feature almost in any other rock concert, of the ones like AC/DC. But those clips show that The Stones still had it if they want to. They don't.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 16:41 by Doxa.

Quote
liddas
I don't have a clue of what happened this time around.

In the past 20 years or more - let's say from fly on the wall onwards - AC DC's releases were not exactly an event and stadiums did not sell out easily.

I don't think the latest release cold ice is any better than the past 3 / 4 cds- yet bingo! And sold out tour too.

Guess the thread should be renamed Columbia Records v. Virgin ...

C

I think the album just came at a time when people were sick of pop/rap/country music and looking for something that went back to basic rock and roll, and the same thing can be said of the tour. It's not that Black Ice is that great of an album (Im not even sure if it's better than Stiff Upper Lip), it just hit the market at the right time.

I thoroughly enjoyed the show last week, and it probably helped that there's just not that many straight rock and roll acts touring right now.

Quote
liddas
Doxa:

to be fair, my ABB ticket was only 15 euros more expensive than the AC/DC one (75), and the production of the Stones show can't compare with AC/DC.

Last time I saw AC/DC the ticket was 28 euros.

As for Metallica being "fan friendly", go ask the same question to the filesharing communities ...

C

Sure, I am not any expert on the matters of AC/DC or Metallica (I don't think them as idealist saints, either), and I am surely exaggerating. But still: there still seem to exist a kind of strategical difference between them and the Stones. Surely, all of them are making great business moves and to an extent, the Stones just seem to be the market leader in this economical game. But the Stones, on the other hand, just seemed to take this 'capitalist' rock and roll concept as far as one can possible imagine.

But like I earlier said, my intention is just to try to make sense why the Stones are not so 'cool' anymore, and seem to gather much more interest among the younger generataions these days, than, say, AC/DC.

I think it is sad that the best Stones moments of the last decades are the ones when they seem give up are not limited by their usual 'all seated high-priced stadium oriented Las Vegas Safe and Sure Entertainment Formula' they do for 'living' (sic). Think of the moments of them jamming together, or STRIPPED sessions and theatre shows - their performance in Isle of Wight, etc. It almost sounds like that the band itself sounds not just relaxed but more inspired when they are doing something 'extra-curricular'; for example, trying to win the young audience at Isle of Weight. Hell, looking some of their DVD material of recent years: even some impromptu jams they do just by themselves are more enjoyable than the calculated 'official' performances they do as multi-professional entertainers with the same old cliches, the same old manouvres, the same old antics, the same old numbers. To an extent, I think they are victims of their own greed. But shit, the salary is enermous,

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 17:36 by Doxa.

I haven't a heard a lick from AC/DC's new album here in the US. Are "people" really all excited about it elsewhere? Otherwise, the comparison of the Stones to AC/DC seems forced--what do they have to do with each other? The "Stones vs. McCartney" or "vs. U2" debates make at least a small bit of sense, though they're still pointless.