For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
Elmo Lewis
The 3 headed demon of MTV, rap, and grunge killed blues based rock as we know it.
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
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..