Tell Me :
Talk
Good post and totally true.
Maybe their constant presence on the market would be equal with a one or two biggest selling-career defying albums and then nothing. I mean a lot of bands could sell over 10 million copies of an album - there was a band I recall Hootie & The Blowfish sold 10m of an album in the 90's and where are they now? The Stones got a few very good selling album in every decade since the 60's, their collection albums sold very well as well, and I think in the last 20 years they've developed the album-world tour-live recording-merchandise system, and they are invincible in that.
there's no question about that, kees.
Stones audiences are a bit different than that of any other rock n roll band I'm familiar with. You can do a flowchart to answer the original question in this thread
Expensive tickets => Older and more corporate audiences => more attendees who dont know the songs => lazier audience who expect and demand the hits and little else because they've paid so much to attend => band feel obliged to pander to this, and stagnate creatively => audience don't buy material other than the greatest hits because they dont get exposed to it.
The Stones, thanks to Cohl's influence, probably no longer care if they get a new audience for their music because the big bucks are in the concert industry and whilst they're no doubt conscious of the fact that they're in the twilight of their career as a touring act, there's still enough mileage and money in the corporate format to keep it going for a little while yet. Things might have been a bit different had this been 20-25 years ago and they felt the need to try and attract new fans, but there simply isnt the financial rewards in it to justify the effort.
Pity - because a lot of that fantastic back catalogue is getting overlooked and unappreciated due to self neglect.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-07 21:44 by Gazza.
Man do you have to be rude?
The fact is that of the TOP 30 catalog issues NONE have extra tracks so extra tracks is not what is moving back catalog!
I am not going to go and count the other 170 and although I am sure there are exceptions 80% of the back catalog do not have extra tracks.
lack of extra tracks is not what is hurting moving units of the Stones catalog at large. .it may be a problem for us who already own the albums but the public at large- which after all is what counts- is not buying the Stones back catalog for reasons other than a lack of extra tracks.
Moreover even packaging or mastering is not the issue... Look at Back in Black- a real consistent mover- its got hardly any packaging and even the mastering is pretty dubious...
Furthermore, and as the final nail in the coffin of your rude Econ in a parallel universe post: the Stones CD issues of their London catalog are generally recognized to have great sound (go look at the reviews on the All Music Guide by their head writer..he's practically creaming his pants about how great they sound) nevertheless albums such as Let it Bleed- classics through and through - simply do not sell..
The answer as has been pointed out by others on this thread is that the Stones legacy with the new generations is that they are greedy old farts and there is no interest in them..
Don't be rude man..there's no need for that.. You mentioned extra tracks being a key thing in moving catalog and thats just not borne out by the facts..I mean the Beatles back catalog has been selling for decades and there hasn't been a remaster yet (since 1987) and there isn't one extra track!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-08 06:48 by stoned in washington dc.
Bad analogy...most of those bands (Hendrix, Zep, Who, Floyd, Elvis, Joplin, Queen, CCR) ENDED and thus are frozen in a particular moment in time for a lot of fans. And the other ones have aged gracefully. Seeing a nearly 70 yr old Jagger prancing onstage is rather pathetic...
This and Doxa's post nail it on the head...
Yep...
Your not far off, but it's funny since rap (Well, early rap at least) comes from blues, and so does a lot of grunge. Kurt Cobain's fave musician was Ledbelly for one. That's also why The White Stripes and the like can be quite enjoyable. It's grunge mixed with old-time blues for the most part. Can be interesting at times.
JumpingKentFlash
Wincing at the above. Despite all the great performances (and some very strong recordings) the above pretty much sums up my worst fears for the band.
there's a lot of truth in what you say. a friend of mine - billed himself as a huge stones friend - was comparing notes with me after an oakland '89 show and commented about his fave three songs of the night - NONE of which were played.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Lorenz
()
Date: June 7, 2009 11:28
because they have successfully destroyed their image with my generation (mid 20ies). They are seen as greedy, old men - had they stopped in the 70ies, they would sell like crazy.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 7, 2009 11:57
I think Doxa is dead right in his view. The Stones have been damaging their legacy due to their uninspiring longevity, certainly of the last 25 years +. I also feel there is another factor - the general public tend to have a very narrow perspective about what consitutes the Stones 'sound'. The singles they released in their heyday were predominantly loud rock 'n' roll/rock affairs (with of course a few notable exceptions). The Stones music in its prime possesses a breadth and sophistication many of the general public are unaware of. I have a number of friends who had never listened to a Stones album who thought the Stones were just loud and raw with little contrast. They were very surprised on hearing an album like Beggars Banquet. This also may be a factor why Mick and Keith never seem to be rated as highly as some of their fellow sixties songwriting contempories, although i do believe also that the likes of Ray Davies, Pete Townshend and John Lennon were a little more specific in their songwriting themes.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
mr edward
()
Date: June 7, 2009 11:58
Quote
Lorenz
because they have successfully destroyed their image with my generation (mid 20ies). They are seen as greedy, old men - had they stopped in the 70ies, they would sell like crazy.
Good post and totally true.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
squando
()
Date: June 7, 2009 12:31
The Stones catalogue is huge compared to LZ and it is far easier to complete Zeppelin or Beatles collections than the Stones.
They've never had the huge 20 million seller - but had they toured extensively behing SG instead of a six week throw together tour the sales of it may have been far greater. But then they did that behind TY and as well as it sold it never got close to the Back In Black sales did it? Weird given a huge hit single plus WOAF and a three month stadium sellout tour - and ACDC didn't even have a hit single, didn't top the charts and still sold like a monster.
ACDC and Zeppelin have a hard core fan base and always have had - so huge selling albums are probably gonna appear. The Stones I feel have never had a hard core fan base.
Tha Beatles are still so popular it's astounding. Everthing they released sells no matter what so can't really include them in the mix as once again they are the exception.
Most people that like the Stones probably have a greatest hits or something or are perhaps happy enough with what they hear on the radio.
The Stones still get slammed on the radio in Australia.
They've never had the huge 20 million seller - but had they toured extensively behing SG instead of a six week throw together tour the sales of it may have been far greater. But then they did that behind TY and as well as it sold it never got close to the Back In Black sales did it? Weird given a huge hit single plus WOAF and a three month stadium sellout tour - and ACDC didn't even have a hit single, didn't top the charts and still sold like a monster.
ACDC and Zeppelin have a hard core fan base and always have had - so huge selling albums are probably gonna appear. The Stones I feel have never had a hard core fan base.
Tha Beatles are still so popular it's astounding. Everthing they released sells no matter what so can't really include them in the mix as once again they are the exception.
Most people that like the Stones probably have a greatest hits or something or are perhaps happy enough with what they hear on the radio.
The Stones still get slammed on the radio in Australia.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: June 7, 2009 13:13
There is no point trying to work out why the Stones don't sell that well to the masses, people who like them buy their albums and are more than happy to have all that is available.
People who are not that bothered will buy a hits compilation like 40 licks and just have it as an occasional thing to play.
Comments about not releasing massively selling albums like Dark Side Of The Moon , are a bit off target, after all an awfull lot of that album's sales were to Hi Fi buffs who liked the way it was recorded and how it showed off their equipment, same with Tubular Bells.
Other people buy vast selling albums not because they are particular fans of that artist but fall into the category off it must be good because everybody else buys it, Fleetwood Mac's Roumers and Dire Straits Brothers In Arms fall into this category.
Phil Collins was massive in the 80's , I don't know a single person who even likes him, let alone bought all those albums.
Currently Oasis are touring Britain and have sold out stadiums all over the country, yet they have not released a great album for years.
Britney Spears has also sold out arena gigs like the 02 in London and the Manchester Evening News Arena , she lip synch's the whole show , yet when a radio presenter asked the crowd leaving the gig if they minded that she was not actually singing, they all said no they didn't mind as it was Britney, the mind boggles.
I personally have all the Stones albums on vinyl and CD, I also have around a thousand other cds, thats my choice, some of the people who buy the so called massive selling albums will possibly only have maybe 40 to 50 albums in their entire collection , but they will all be the ''MUST HAVE'' stuff.
People who are not that bothered will buy a hits compilation like 40 licks and just have it as an occasional thing to play.
Comments about not releasing massively selling albums like Dark Side Of The Moon , are a bit off target, after all an awfull lot of that album's sales were to Hi Fi buffs who liked the way it was recorded and how it showed off their equipment, same with Tubular Bells.
Other people buy vast selling albums not because they are particular fans of that artist but fall into the category off it must be good because everybody else buys it, Fleetwood Mac's Roumers and Dire Straits Brothers In Arms fall into this category.
Phil Collins was massive in the 80's , I don't know a single person who even likes him, let alone bought all those albums.
Currently Oasis are touring Britain and have sold out stadiums all over the country, yet they have not released a great album for years.
Britney Spears has also sold out arena gigs like the 02 in London and the Manchester Evening News Arena , she lip synch's the whole show , yet when a radio presenter asked the crowd leaving the gig if they minded that she was not actually singing, they all said no they didn't mind as it was Britney, the mind boggles.
I personally have all the Stones albums on vinyl and CD, I also have around a thousand other cds, thats my choice, some of the people who buy the so called massive selling albums will possibly only have maybe 40 to 50 albums in their entire collection , but they will all be the ''MUST HAVE'' stuff.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
keefed
()
Date: June 7, 2009 14:06
Quote
still ill
It's always puzzled me how comparatively,and i stress comparatively, few records the Stones have sold when you consider the enormous amount of publicity,advertising and column inches devoted to them over their career.Only perhaps the Beatles have had more press,but the sales pale in comparison.They also lack the 'big' career defining album,a Back in Black,Rumours,Led Zep 4,Dark Side of the Moon,Harvest etc
I read a maybe simplistic theory about this on a stones board a while ago that stated that because they were neither hard rock nor pop,but a somewhere in between,they missed out on the huge sales those genres achieved.I always thought that made some sense but it's still somewhat of a mystery to me.
Maybe their constant presence on the market would be equal with a one or two biggest selling-career defying albums and then nothing. I mean a lot of bands could sell over 10 million copies of an album - there was a band I recall Hootie & The Blowfish sold 10m of an album in the 90's and where are they now? The Stones got a few very good selling album in every decade since the 60's, their collection albums sold very well as well, and I think in the last 20 years they've developed the album-world tour-live recording-merchandise system, and they are invincible in that.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: June 7, 2009 15:25
"Because most of the youngsters don't care about some 60+ guy's who played Rock and Roll"
The Lez Zep CD is doing pretty well.. probably cos it's been heavily promoted as "remastered to optimum results by Jimmy Page himself".
With the current crop of Stones reissues it feels like it's the same old stuff with a new 2009 copyright...
The Lez Zep CD is doing pretty well.. probably cos it's been heavily promoted as "remastered to optimum results by Jimmy Page himself".
With the current crop of Stones reissues it feels like it's the same old stuff with a new 2009 copyright...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 7, 2009 18:06
>Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
1. Hopeless marketing - the same product has been reissued countless times, with no extras. If hardcore fans arent going to fall for this over & over, then dont expect the wider public to do the same.
2. Pricing - selling 30-40 year old albums at full price in this day & age is borderline idiocy.
3. The band have effectively 'lost' a generation of potential fans in the last decade or so because of the fact that theyve targeted almost exclusively an ageing fanbase. Stones concerts are targeted (ie, priced) towards an affluent audience who are middle aged. People in their teens or twenties dont usually have the income to pay $500 or £150 for a concert ticket - especially when there are countless bands of their own generation who are charging 10-20% of that for a ticket. If you can't draw these people to your concerts, then they're not going to buy your records and your sales will drop because a) your existing audience is eventually going to diminish due to age, death, disinterest and natural wastage and b) you're not going to replace them with a new one because your shows are too expensive and you therefore cant compete with younger bands.
The fact that theyre in their 60's in itself isn't THAT big a factor.
It speaks volumes that Bob Dylan - who is nowhere as radio friendly in a musical sense as the Stones are - is selling more records than they are these days. Whoever is in charge of marketing him has done a great job in restoring his commercial reputation - he's put out good albums which have been well promoted, released a few archive albums, tours constantly AND his ticket prices are reasonable. Whilst Bob couldnt sell anywhere near as many concert tickets as the Stones can, what IS noticeable is that his shows have a far higher % of younger fans at them. And, as can be seen from sales, they know the new songs too.
1. Hopeless marketing - the same product has been reissued countless times, with no extras. If hardcore fans arent going to fall for this over & over, then dont expect the wider public to do the same.
2. Pricing - selling 30-40 year old albums at full price in this day & age is borderline idiocy.
3. The band have effectively 'lost' a generation of potential fans in the last decade or so because of the fact that theyve targeted almost exclusively an ageing fanbase. Stones concerts are targeted (ie, priced) towards an affluent audience who are middle aged. People in their teens or twenties dont usually have the income to pay $500 or £150 for a concert ticket - especially when there are countless bands of their own generation who are charging 10-20% of that for a ticket. If you can't draw these people to your concerts, then they're not going to buy your records and your sales will drop because a) your existing audience is eventually going to diminish due to age, death, disinterest and natural wastage and b) you're not going to replace them with a new one because your shows are too expensive and you therefore cant compete with younger bands.
The fact that theyre in their 60's in itself isn't THAT big a factor.
It speaks volumes that Bob Dylan - who is nowhere as radio friendly in a musical sense as the Stones are - is selling more records than they are these days. Whoever is in charge of marketing him has done a great job in restoring his commercial reputation - he's put out good albums which have been well promoted, released a few archive albums, tours constantly AND his ticket prices are reasonable. Whilst Bob couldnt sell anywhere near as many concert tickets as the Stones can, what IS noticeable is that his shows have a far higher % of younger fans at them. And, as can be seen from sales, they know the new songs too.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Lorenz
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:02
gazza sums it up just perfect again. and it's such a sad story...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
kees
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:11
The % of so called 'Tourists' is also much bigger at a Stones gig than at a U2 or Springsteen gig I feel. Fans of the other two bands are in general well aware of the recent releases and new songs are very much welcomed and sang along with.
Even at AC/DC last gig in Gelsenkirchen the 5 new songs were appreciated very much by the audience and seemed well known.
Even at AC/DC last gig in Gelsenkirchen the 5 new songs were appreciated very much by the audience and seemed well known.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:36
Quote
kees
The % of so called 'Tourists' is also much bigger at a Stones gig than at a U2 or Springsteen gig I feel. Fans of the other two bands are in general well aware of the recent releases and new songs are very much welcomed and sang along with.
Even at AC/DC last gig in Gelsenkirchen the 5 new songs were appreciated very much by the audience and seemed well known.
there's no question about that, kees.
Stones audiences are a bit different than that of any other rock n roll band I'm familiar with. You can do a flowchart to answer the original question in this thread
Expensive tickets => Older and more corporate audiences => more attendees who dont know the songs => lazier audience who expect and demand the hits and little else because they've paid so much to attend => band feel obliged to pander to this, and stagnate creatively => audience don't buy material other than the greatest hits because they dont get exposed to it.
The Stones, thanks to Cohl's influence, probably no longer care if they get a new audience for their music because the big bucks are in the concert industry and whilst they're no doubt conscious of the fact that they're in the twilight of their career as a touring act, there's still enough mileage and money in the corporate format to keep it going for a little while yet. Things might have been a bit different had this been 20-25 years ago and they felt the need to try and attract new fans, but there simply isnt the financial rewards in it to justify the effort.
Pity - because a lot of that fantastic back catalogue is getting overlooked and unappreciated due to self neglect.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-07 21:44 by Gazza.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
jp.M
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:51
..I read the AMAZON 's best sellers list for long and they are always well
placed along the years....they need only to relaunch the machine...
placed along the years....they need only to relaunch the machine...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
EST62
()
Date: June 7, 2009 21:51
I think that the Stones have somehow managed to become distant from the fans and are too much like a corporation. Most corporations are indeed out of touch with the man on the street. They can fill the large stadiums primarily because a lot of fans and people will buy the tickets thinking that it will be the last time that they will tour. Throw out the actual true fan that will always buy a ticket and they wouldn't sell it out. They haven't released a really good album in many years. Too much dependence on the old warhorses. As far as old albums selling and greatest hits albums being sold, I don't even have a Stones greatest hits album. I never saw the point in buying the same song twice if I already have it on an original album. At some point in the Stones long career, I'm quessing the late 70's early 80's it seems like they lost touch with the fans and slowly inched into the corporate side of music more, concentrating less on being the great live band that they were. More or less inaccesible to the fans anymore, they seem to not give a hoot about record sales anymore just filling the stadiums. They have plenty of money and investments socked away and could walk away from it now if they wished. They could care less Why old albums or rehashed greatest hits albums don't sell. They are not the Stones that they once were. No band that's been around as long as they have are what they once were either. I think they should do a new album,do one more tour, large or small and walk away from it. They have thier place in music history, they are legends. Go out in style.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: June 8, 2009 06:07
I think it's because:
1. They don't release any genuinely exciting material for the fans, aside from a new studio album every X years that's probably not going to set the charts on fire and with the honourable exceptions in last 25 years of Forty Licks (convenience for casual fans), Four Flicks (great) and I guess the Biggest Bang DVD
2. Please stop releasing live CDs of the tours. These days everyone has them from 20-30 years ago when the band were on much better form. Besides which, these days IMHO much of the appeal of the band's live shows is as much visual as musical anyway
3. No interesting releases of decent remasters or true rarities or box sets (I guess MJ is waiting until the band is rolling no more for these to emerge)
CONCLUSION
Much as I love the band, I am almost thinking the time has come for them to stop. Keith is simply not up to it any more (sorry!), even if the others can just about get by.
Plus I agree with earlier comments that they have so many albums that in comparison to, say, the Beatles it's hard for many of these to stand out to the average Joe as a must-buy item.
Maybe when they've stopped rolling (gulp!) their 'recognition' will go up as nostlgia kicks in.
1. They don't release any genuinely exciting material for the fans, aside from a new studio album every X years that's probably not going to set the charts on fire and with the honourable exceptions in last 25 years of Forty Licks (convenience for casual fans), Four Flicks (great) and I guess the Biggest Bang DVD
2. Please stop releasing live CDs of the tours. These days everyone has them from 20-30 years ago when the band were on much better form. Besides which, these days IMHO much of the appeal of the band's live shows is as much visual as musical anyway
3. No interesting releases of decent remasters or true rarities or box sets (I guess MJ is waiting until the band is rolling no more for these to emerge)
CONCLUSION
Much as I love the band, I am almost thinking the time has come for them to stop. Keith is simply not up to it any more (sorry!), even if the others can just about get by.
Plus I agree with earlier comments that they have so many albums that in comparison to, say, the Beatles it's hard for many of these to stand out to the average Joe as a must-buy item.
Maybe when they've stopped rolling (gulp!) their 'recognition' will go up as nostlgia kicks in.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
stoned in washington dc
()
Date: June 8, 2009 06:38
Quote
whitem8Quote
stoned in washington dcQuote
whitem8
Well something that Sir Mick the economist has failed to remember from Econ 101, is the pure market competition and buyer's expectations. With more and more bands, such as The Who, The Kinks, The Beatles, etc... have all revamped and souped up their catalogue with unreleased, significantly re-mastered, and live material. So it is no surprise that consumers are avoiding a majority of The Stones re-releases because as free market consumers they understand that they should wait. And if they wait the predicted re-releases with merit will probably come out.
For example I gladly just purchased the Deluxe limited Edition of Macca's Electric Arguments. Presented in metal reel container, limited edition Macca prints suitable for framing, and an additional disc of alternate mixes and unreleased material from the album. Brilliant!
This is absolutely incorrect.. most of those albums have no extras... BACK IN BLACK has no extras.. the LED ZEP albums have no extras... the ABBA gold has no extras...
Its just an illfounded statement that consumers don't buy the Stones records because they don't have extra tracks.
Read the fine print boy! I didn't mention any of the acts you quoted me as stating. ALL THE ACTS I LISTED HAVE EXTRAS RELEASED. The Who, The Kinks, The Beatles... Sorry if your focused on Abba, that tells a lot.
Zeppelin, well I just got the box set of the remastered LP replicas, and it is fantastic! The mix is great and the packaging is top notch. Not like the "new Universal remasters" that censors Star F u c k e r. Shame on that shoddy lack of attention. Groups like The Who, Kinks and Beatles seem to take more active participation in re-releases and new releases. That is the sad fact. And that my friend is ECON 101.
Man do you have to be rude?
The fact is that of the TOP 30 catalog issues NONE have extra tracks so extra tracks is not what is moving back catalog!
I am not going to go and count the other 170 and although I am sure there are exceptions 80% of the back catalog do not have extra tracks.
lack of extra tracks is not what is hurting moving units of the Stones catalog at large. .it may be a problem for us who already own the albums but the public at large- which after all is what counts- is not buying the Stones back catalog for reasons other than a lack of extra tracks.
Moreover even packaging or mastering is not the issue... Look at Back in Black- a real consistent mover- its got hardly any packaging and even the mastering is pretty dubious...
Furthermore, and as the final nail in the coffin of your rude Econ in a parallel universe post: the Stones CD issues of their London catalog are generally recognized to have great sound (go look at the reviews on the All Music Guide by their head writer..he's practically creaming his pants about how great they sound) nevertheless albums such as Let it Bleed- classics through and through - simply do not sell..
The answer as has been pointed out by others on this thread is that the Stones legacy with the new generations is that they are greedy old farts and there is no interest in them..
Don't be rude man..there's no need for that.. You mentioned extra tracks being a key thing in moving catalog and thats just not borne out by the facts..I mean the Beatles back catalog has been selling for decades and there hasn't been a remaster yet (since 1987) and there isn't one extra track!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-08 06:48 by stoned in washington dc.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: June 8, 2009 07:56
Rude is completely mis quoting somone's post which was done to me! Rude is saying that I said something that I did not say. If you read my post, not once do I mention ABBA or ACDC. Rude is saying definitively "This is absolutely incorrect.. most of those albums have no extras... BACK IN BLACK has no extras.. the LED ZEP albums have no extras... the ABBA gold has no extras..." Again I never metioned those artists in my original post and was expressing my opinon. And I did not mention any albums! I mentioned specific artists: The Beatles, The Kinks, and the Who. I was not referring to the list at the start of the post, I was making a more philisophical point about the lacklusterness of the The Stones' reissues. YOu opened the flood gates buddy by your post. Reep what ye have sown.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-08 09:43 by whitem8.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-08 09:43 by whitem8.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 8, 2009 12:13
"You got the sun, the air and the Stones". Maybe the problem actually is with this idealogy; the people actually take the Stones too granted.. They are too ordinary and obvious to excite the imagination of the younger generation. We usually don't too get the excited of the sun or the air, either.. but wait until they disappear and we will notice the loss!
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-09 11:01 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-09 11:01 by Doxa.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: June 8, 2009 12:56
... nevertheless albums such as Let it Bleed- classics through and through - simply do not sell..
[/quote]
Let it bleed is a very good example because für non-fans it is completely dated. It belongs to a musical category which is out of fashion nowadays because it lacks hits like those of the Beatles. The blues/folk approach does not attract many consumers, and we old fans already have the album. Who wants to hear the studio version of Midnight rambler or Love in vain or Country honk?
[/quote]
Let it bleed is a very good example because für non-fans it is completely dated. It belongs to a musical category which is out of fashion nowadays because it lacks hits like those of the Beatles. The blues/folk approach does not attract many consumers, and we old fans already have the album. Who wants to hear the studio version of Midnight rambler or Love in vain or Country honk?
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: June 8, 2009 13:33
I also agree with Doxa, who says it better than I did: that IMO the worst thing the Stones are doing for their own legacy is to still be around. They are in effect killing off any mystique of their legacy.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
StonesFanatic
()
Date: June 8, 2009 14:07
Quote
georgelicksQuote
NICOS
Because most of the youngsters don't care about some 60+ guy's who played Rock and Roll
The same can we say about The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Elvis, AC/DC, Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Hendrix, Creedence, Aerosmith, Queen, Kiss, Janis Joplin, Neil Young, Clapton... all classic artist with way better catalog sales these days.
Bad analogy...most of those bands (Hendrix, Zep, Who, Floyd, Elvis, Joplin, Queen, CCR) ENDED and thus are frozen in a particular moment in time for a lot of fans. And the other ones have aged gracefully. Seeing a nearly 70 yr old Jagger prancing onstage is rather pathetic...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
StonesFanatic
()
Date: June 8, 2009 14:11
Quote
Edward Twining
I think Doxa is dead right in his view. The Stones have been damaging their legacy due to their uninspiring longevity, certainly of the last 25 years +. I also feel there is another factor - the general public tend to have a very narrow perspective about what consitutes the Stones 'sound'. The singles they released in their heyday were predominantly loud rock 'n' roll/rock affairs (with of course a few notable exceptions). The Stones music in its prime possesses a breadth and sophistication many of the general public are unaware of. I have a number of friends who had never listened to a Stones album who thought the Stones were just loud and raw with little contrast. They were very surprised on hearing an album like Beggars Banquet. This also may be a factor why Mick and Keith never seem to be rated as highly as some of their fellow sixties songwriting contempories, although i do believe also that the likes of Ray Davies, Pete Townshend and John Lennon were a little more specific in their songwriting themes.
This and Doxa's post nail it on the head...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: June 8, 2009 15:25
The 3 headed demon of MTV, rap, and grunge killed blues based rock as we know it.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
StonesFanatic
()
Date: June 8, 2009 17:09
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I also agree with Doxa, who says it better than I did: that IMO the worst thing the Stones are doing for their own legacy is to still be around. They are in effect killing off any mystique of their legacy.
Yep...
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: June 8, 2009 18:40
Quote
Elmo Lewis
The 3 headed demon of MTV, rap, and grunge killed blues based rock as we know it.
Your not far off, but it's funny since rap (Well, early rap at least) comes from blues, and so does a lot of grunge. Kurt Cobain's fave musician was Ledbelly for one. That's also why The White Stripes and the like can be quite enjoyable. It's grunge mixed with old-time blues for the most part. Can be interesting at times.
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
Rev. Robert W.
()
Date: June 8, 2009 20:37
Quote
Doxa
What a drag is getting old... and act like that nothing has happened.
I think this is a result of milking out the past with same concept now for 20 years. For the younger generations the band and its image has been the same old funny-looking grandaddies doing the same old song again and again; they might be entertaining to see live sometimes, like to go to a living rock museum, and to hear there the familiar songs that can be haerd daily at any major rock stations. But there is no any excitement, the feeling of magic or danger or surprise or vitality associated with the Stones for a long time. At the same time the band releases countless live documents of their tours in a different form, and the bulk of the stuff offered at music stores is based on that. The same old song, the same old band...(plus the wonder the young guitarists would get: is this so called "greatest r%.blah blah" ... really a "guitar band", or are those guys really famous guitarists). Well, some new hit collection in every few years will sell nicely, but's that it. I can easily understand why, say, The Doors or Janis Joplin, not to mention The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, offer much more exciting and inspiring musical adventures than, say, buying LIVE LICKS or A BIGGER BANG. Like mentioned above the back catalog, and how it is marketed, is very uncohesive and twisted, and I beleive it looks quite obscure; people cannot make sense out of it. The more the Stones release all kind of worthless tour souvenir stuff, and getting guick profits, the more they are just killing their legacy, and making it look bad.
Well, let's say that if The Stones have stopped circa 1983, their image as the most famous, rebellous, original and perhaps most important rock band in history would be very different, and they would look much better to new generations, and perhaps to elder as well. In that case their back catalog surely would have been treated other way, and perhaps its value would have seen in more appropriate way.
What we are here wittnessing is the payback of Cohl years now. The Stones got very rich and we got a change to see the same old song once in while.
Some say that when the band finally call it quits, THEN their historical value can be seen, and the "James Dean" effect will finally reach them. But I think that might be too late; what the band has doing for 20 years now is killing that legacy, and, say, if they continue some ten years more with the same concept, their legacy WOULD be this Vegas touring circus playing without inspiration the same old song, with the lead singer forcingly moving his thinny ass.
- Doxa
Wincing at the above. Despite all the great performances (and some very strong recordings) the above pretty much sums up my worst fears for the band.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 8, 2009 20:58
You can get most of AC/DC's back catalogue for $7 a disc at Wal-Mart. Fantastic packaging, all remastered - remastered all the way to Stiff Upper Lip. Made cheap to SELL. People buy them all the time. Because they're not expensive and they sound great.
I saw the UMe reissues at Barnes And Noble the other day. There's no way in hell I'd ever pay $17.38 or whatever for IORR nowadays. Granted, part of that problem is the amount of stock B&N has - not much. So their prices are high.
So yeah, buy the used Virgins for half the price. There is bound to be millions of extra Virgins hitting the markets this year.
I saw the UMe reissues at Barnes And Noble the other day. There's no way in hell I'd ever pay $17.38 or whatever for IORR nowadays. Granted, part of that problem is the amount of stock B&N has - not much. So their prices are high.
So yeah, buy the used Virgins for half the price. There is bound to be millions of extra Virgins hitting the markets this year.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 8, 2009 21:09
i think this is being over-analyzed. there's a very simple explanation why it's not selling so well:
few people are buying
few people are buying
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: June 8, 2009 21:18
Ha ha. Right.
Another way of saying that is nobody cares.
Another way of saying that is nobody cares.
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
JK
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:06
Sometimes I think that yes The Rolling Stones are famous (well Mick is and maybe Ronnie because of the gossip magazines), but people really don´t know their music.
I remember during the Babylon tour when they played Sister Morphine and many people went to buy beer..
I remember during the Babylon tour when they played Sister Morphine and many people went to buy beer..
Re: Why the Stones' catalog sell so bad these days?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: June 9, 2009 00:08
Quote
JK
Sometimes I think that yes The Rolling Stones are famous (well Mick is and maybe Ronnie because of the gossip magazines), but people really don´t know their music.
I remember during the Babylon tour when they played Sister Morphine and many people went to buy beer..
there's a lot of truth in what you say. a friend of mine - billed himself as a huge stones friend - was comparing notes with me after an oakland '89 show and commented about his fave three songs of the night - NONE of which were played.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , babyblue , BowieStone , chrisvw , dishevelmentblues , Fitzcaraldo , Halup , JimmyTheSaint , Justjon , littlevillage , mariano , NedKellyBandit , ohmercy61 , swaff , swimtothemoon , Topi , TumblinDice76
Guests:
2082
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10