Read an article today where it was mentioned that LZ sold approx. 300 million records. A band with a career span of 12 yrs.
That sounds to me more than the Stones sold in their 40 yr career .
Can somebody confirm this and explain if true.....

I believe that figure includes material released after that twelve year time span such as the boxed set from the early '90's etc..

But is it true and can you explain it?

The Top Ten Artists in U.S. Album Sales (Nov 2003) were

1. Beatles 106,530,000 records
2. Garth Brooks 92,000,000 records
3. Led Zeppelin 83,620,000 records
4. Elvis Presley 77,280,000 records
5. Eagles 65,000,000 records (including the best selling US album of all time)
6. Billy Joel 63,250,000 records
7. Barbra Streisand 62,750,000
8. Elton John 61,620,000 records
9. Aerosmith 54,370,000 records
10. Pink Floyd 52,600,000 records

No Rolling Stones in sight... their best selling US album was "Hot rocks" with 12,000,000 records... while Led Zeppelin sold 22,000,000 of "Led Zeppelin 4", 15,000,000 of "Physical graffiti", 12'000'000 of "Led Zeppelin 2", 11,000,000 of "Houses of the holy" and 10,000,000 of "Led Zeppelin".

As far as I know the best selling Rolling Stones studio album was "Some girls" selling 8,000,000 records. Worldwide.

"2. Garth Brooks 92,000,000 records"

Sweet jezus! can that really be possible......

Those are USA-only numbers

Interesting info, thanks Lots of artist I never thought would have sold that much. So the Stones are really more a live nostalgia act than a record selling band

USA only #s!!!

It was mentioned on here before that albums like "Physical Graffiti", the Wall, or Hot Rocks are counted twice, because each disc is counted individually. If that is the case wouldnt that halve the sales for those respective albums?
Also if you sell alot of albums doesnt mean your good musically (im looking at you Britney Spears, and to a lesser extant, Led Zeppelin, whom I abhore).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-16 18:23 by Happy Jack.

that seems a strange way of counting sales to me.....

kees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting info, thanks Lots of artist I never
> thought would have sold that much. So the Stones
> are really more a live nostalgia act than a record
> selling band

How do you figure that?

By that logic Rolling Stones have never been anything but a "live nostalgia act", seing they have never sold that many albums - not in the 60', not in the 70',not in the 80's, not in the 90's - and - phew! - not in 00's ;-)

Well, I presumed that sales were well until Tattoo You (because it had the nr. Start me up on it). If poor sales after that album, than the Stones are not more of a nostalgia act from the 89 tour on.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "2. Garth Brooks 92,000,000 records"
>
> Sweet jezus! can that really be possible......


Having driven across the U.S. a few times I can see it. Once you leave California heading east, when you flip through your car's radio stations, you get one news station, several talk and religious radio stations, maybe one rock station neer big cities, and usually at least 5 country stations at any one time.

I also think that the baby boomer generation doesn't buy music like they use to. We might, but we are not the average fan of rock and roll, or we wouldn't be part of this forum. (Yes, we are special)

The Stones worldwide sales are around 200-250 million.

there are several artists who have sold more. Several of whom would be unknown to fans of western rock music.

[en.wikipedia.org]

(something tells me the inclusion of 'Martin Grace' is some kind of spam/joke by whoever inserted his name. never heard of him)

If i remember correctly (i haven't my notebook here!), according to a RIAA's older catalogue the Stones are #14 with 210 million and Led Zeppelin #14 after having sold 200 million. There is a huge difference between RIAA's catalogue and what wikipedia does say.

Well,
In my humble collection...

The Stones have sold me about 60 albums
THe Beatles 45
Zeppelin 8
Eagles 2 (gimmie a break)
Aerosmith 7
Elvis 2
Pink Floyd 4

Stones sold 300 milions albuns or more.

It is quite a stretch to say The Stones are more of a live nostalgia act than a record selling band unless you are just talking about recently. How many artists have sold records in the U.S.? Thousands? Tens of thousands? The Stones are number eleven or twelve on the RIAA list of the best selling artists so to paint them as a band that doesn't sell a lot of albums is ludicrous.

They haven't sold as many as The Beatles, Elvis, Zeppelin etc. but they sold a shitload of albums nonetheless. I'm sure they have sold at least 200 million worldwide.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If i remember correctly (i haven't my notebook
> here!), according to a RIAA's older catalogue the
> Stones are #14 with 210 million and Led Zeppelin
> #14 after having sold 200 million. There is a huge
> difference between RIAA's catalogue and what
> wikipedia does say.


210 million in US sales? No way. The Stones US sales are about a third of that. They're usually on or just outside the Top 10.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-17 03:39 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is quite a stretch to say The Stones are more
> of a live nostalgia act than a record selling band
> unless you are just talking about recently.

Thats correct, although it IS maybe a recent phenomeonon.


How
> many artists have sold records in the U.S.?
> Thousands? Tens of thousands? The Stones are
> number eleven or twelve on the RIAA list of the
> best selling artists so to paint them as a band
> that doesn't sell a lot of albums is ludicrous.

Frank, thats exactly the point I keep making when people (including Jagger himself) justify them playing setlists with very little more than their biggest hits on the grounds that "hardly anyone knows the other stuff". If thats the case how have they managed to sell about a quarter of a BILLION records?
>
> They haven't sold as many as The Beatles, Elvis,
> Zeppelin etc. but they sold a shitload of albums
> nonetheless. I'm sure they have sold at least 200
> million worldwide.


Correct on all counts.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stickydion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If i remember correctly (i haven't my notebook
> > here!), according to a RIAA's older catalogue
> the
> > Stones are #14 with 210 million and Led
> Zeppelin
> > #14 after having sold 200 million. There is a
> huge
> > difference between RIAA's catalogue and what
> > wikipedia does say.
>
>
> 210 million in US sales? No way. The Stones US
> sales are about a third of that. They're usually
> on or just outside the Top 10.

Last time I checked it was around 66 million for the U.S. sales so maybe Sticky is thinking of worldwide numbers when he says 210 million- that may be a little low though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-17 03:59 by FrankM.

That sounds about right for the US. For some reason the link on riaa.com no longer has the total sales per artist.

yeah well all that may be true about the stones being behind many bands in recored sales, but when it comes to ticket sales for touring the stones leave them all in the dust for the most part, that has always puzzled me why the stones have only marginal record sales but always set attendance records for tours, you would figure one would go with the other right?

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Top Ten Artists in U.S. Album Sales (Nov 2003)
> were
>
> 1. Beatles 106,530,000 records
> 2. Garth Brooks 92,000,000 records
> 3. Led Zeppelin 83,620,000 records
> 4. Elvis Presley 77,280,000 records
> 5. Eagles 65,000,000 records (including the best
> selling US album of all time)
> 6. Billy Joel 63,250,000 records
> 7. Barbra Streisand 62,750,000
> 8. Elton John 61,620,000 records
> 9. Aerosmith 54,370,000 records
> 10. Pink Floyd 52,600,000 records



Where is AC/DC on that list? They should be in there. Close to 70 millions albums in the US.
I still cant believe why Led Zeppelin sold so many albums while Black Sabbath is so far behind. Sabbath was always to me more influental and better in general.

Gazza wrote:

"stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If i remember correctly (i haven't my notebook
> here!), according to a RIAA's older catalogue the
> Stones are #14 with 210 million and Led Zeppelin
> #14 after having sold 200 million. There is a huge
> difference between RIAA's catalogue and what
> wikipedia does say.


210 million in US sales? No way. The Stones US sales are about a third of that. They're usually on or just outside the Top 10."


No, not in US sales, Gazza. I mean worldwide, of course. Here is RIAA catalogue. I repeat, WORLDWIDE sales.



(1) Beatles 1 billion +
(2) Elvis 1 billion +
(3) ABBA 260
(4) Cliff Richard 260
(5) Michael Jackson 250
(6) NanaMouskouri 250
(7) Madonna 250
(8) Mariah Carey 230
(9) Celine Dion 220
(10) Elton John 220
(11) Carth Brooks 210
(12) Rolling Stones 210
(13) Led Zeppelin 200
(14) Juglio Inglesias 200
(15) Tom Jones 200
(16) AC/DC 185

etc, etc

Other bands: Genesis 160, U2 150, Status Quo 135, Pink Floyd 125, REM 110.

I think that real Stones sales number must be 220 + now, as this catalogue has been published before "Forty Licks" and ABB album came out.

RIAA isnt world sales though. thats my point.

220+ million sounds a reasonable estimate

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah well all that may be true about the stones
> being behind many bands in recored sales, but when
> it comes to ticket sales for touring the stones
> leave them all in the dust for the most part,

Kinda helps that the Beatles stopped touring in 1966, Elvis in 1977 and Led Zep in 1980

that
> has always puzzled me why the stones have only
> marginal record sales but always set attendance
> records for tours, you would figure one would go
> with the other right?

they werent really consistently the biggest touring act on the planet until the early 80s, by which stage they were already seen (even to their audience) as a band who had peaked at least a decade earlier. Subsequent tours obviously smashed box office records, but the appeal of their newer work generally decreased as the years progressed.

for me, they blew it on the last tour by not including their new album as part of the ticket purchase. It would have barely ate into the profits of an already high ticket price. Whilst it would have meant it not being eligible for a chart position, it would hardly have mattered. Great way of getting your audience to still listen to your new music even if theyre REALLY mostly there for the old stuff, as Prince has proven in recent years

Good point Gazza- especially as the album is so good- The Stones should be proud of it and, as you say, would not have made much difference profit wise.

Agree compeltely with you Gazza. Serious bands like U2, Springsteen, Dylan, Prince, etc. play some 5/8 songs from their last album during their tour.
The Stones (unfortunately with another favorie of me, AC/DC) don't do that anymore. God knows why.
ABB is a very decent album if you take out Neo Con, Rain Fall and SOL. It had been worth promoting it
Just as weird as not playing new songs during their last tour is the refusal to open the vaults. Instead of giving us something real worth from the 73 or 78 period, we get again a Live Licks II DVD with nothing new under the sun.
It is so hard to believe that serious muscians don't want to keep challenging themselves instead of playing the same songs each tour over and over.

BTW Gazza: I purchased a great sounding 4CD box of Prince in Neveda performing for not more than 70 people during his diner gig, let me know if you want it / or in for a trade?

kees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Serious bands play some 5/8 songs from their last album during their tour.
> The Stones don't do that anymore. God knows why.

I have my own heretical theory about the reason: I'm one of the guys who believes "A bigger bang" was basically a Mick Jagger solo album with far too less contribution by Keith Richards to call it a Rolling Stones album, he maybe contributed 20% when he should have contributed 50%. I also believe this is because Keith Richards creatively burned out. Also I think the 1980s rift between Richards and Jagger has never really been closed - only thanks Michael Cohl and his money machine the Stones are still existing. Let's not talk about this now.

But if it's true it doesn't surprise if Keith just doesn't WANT to play the songs he didn't write. If he'd written the stuff he'd play it, I'm sure - look how proud he was to perform "infamy" (which to me is one of his absolute lowpoints). But instead of playing Jaggers songs he prefers to play "The nearness of you".

At the present stage however it seems quite clear to me that the Rolling Stones are not "Keith's band" even if he's their guitarist. He may say his life are the Rolling Stones, I just don't believe it. Almost all of his output in ther last years was country and ballads (the only exception, "Rough justice" is said to have been written by Ron Wood).

At the moment the Rolling Stones are Chuck Leavell's band. If not Michael Cohl's.