Well--the last -one,I Think it was "Start me up". 29 years ago!!!!If they really want to go-on--they need a smash hit-single---Are mick and keith able???--to write another great- single?

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

The singles market is aimed at children and the music videos that promote them are geared towards the masturbatory fantasies of barely pubescent teenagers.


How many people of that age buys singles by or gets sexually excited by 70 year olds?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-14 00:14 by Gazza.

They are capable of writing a great/very good single, but the question is will radio play a new single from a band whose lead singer is nearly 70 years old?

I don't think they need a top 5 single to go on. Few if any rock bands have crossover singles...What the Stones need to do is to produce a great record of mature music. Think Johnny Cash. Why would the Stones want to compete with Miley Cyrus and Lady Ga Ga at this point? They are above that nonsense.

Besides, it's not like the Stones can't sell tickets and both the "Exile" re-issue and "A Bigger Bang" hit #1 on the global album charts...Just make a great/mature record.

Affirmative, Captain Kirk!

Well if Don Was is right about the unknown warhorse Scarlet, that's just what may happen one day.
But I think the suggestions of Captain Kirk are more useful...

Quote
Whale
Well if Don Was is right about the unknown warhorse Scarlet, that's just what may happen one day.
But I think the suggestions of Captain Kirk are more useful...

Certainly more 'logical'....

No chance what so everr...I don't even think the Glimmers could write a decent song now let alone anything that would make the top5 - even in Khazakstan. Their song writing died away in the late 70's early 80's. As a creative force they are down and out...but, they have enough under their belts to keep stones fans happy for years...who gives a @#$%& if it makes the top 5!

The Stones haven't had a top 5 single in over 30 years.

Quote
mitchflorida
The Stones haven't had a top 5 single in over 30 years.

Emotional Rescue,Start Me Up,Harlem Shuffle,Mixed Emotions

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
mitchflorida
The Stones haven't had a top 5 single in over 30 years.

Emotional Rescue,Start Me Up,Harlem Shuffle,Mixed Emotions

oh, so it's only been 21 years, that's why it feels like only yesterday!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
mitchflorida
The Stones haven't had a top 5 single in over 30 years.

Emotional Rescue,Start Me Up,Harlem Shuffle,Mixed Emotions

oh, so it's only been 21 years, that's why it feels like only yesterday!

It was just the stuff I figured out quickly for the US and/ or UK market,here are
people with massive statistic knowledge and probably Streets of Love popped in some
scandinavian top 5...

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
mitchflorida
The Stones haven't had a top 5 single in over 30 years.

Emotional Rescue,Start Me Up,Harlem Shuffle,Mixed Emotions

oh, so it's only been 21 years, that's why it feels like only yesterday!

It was just the stuff I figured out quickly for the US and/ or UK market,here are
people with massive statistic knowledge and probably Streets of Love popped in some
scandinavian top 5...

Well, not to pee all over Italy or Scandanavia but I think the thread is really referring to a 'real' hit, more or less worldwide, not something that peaked somewhere in the top ten, in a couple of local markets.

I believe I commented on this in a previous thread, pontificating that is what they needed.

In reading some of these comments though, I'm beginning to become convinced that may not be as important, as coming out with a 'rock solid' album of well written tunes in genres that they excel at.

To hell with the 'hit single'.

Someone told me their last monster hit was Start Me Up. Harlem Shuffle was cute .. not a Stones Classic though

Why do people believe that a top 5 single is something indispensable?

Look at the facts..

According to Wikipedia, "Love is Strong" became "the lowest charting first single ever by the band", atleast in the US market. But, if i'm remember correctly, "Voodoo Lounge" became the best selling Stones album since 1981!

ABB album have sold better than "Dirty Work", despite the fact that "DW" contained a top 5 single.

The Stones just need a good album (IMO ABB was a good one) and they also need good marketing ("Universal" seems able to do good job).

The Stones don't need any marketing. Decca didn't do diddly for the Stones and they had one hit after another.


An unknown group needs marketing, not Keith and Mick.

Quote
stickydion
Why do people believe that a top 5 single is something indispensable?

Look at the facts..

According to Wikipedia, "Love is Strong" became "the lowest charting first single ever by the band", atleast in the US market. But, if i'm remember correctly, "Voodoo Lounge" became the best selling Stones album since 1981!

ABB album have sold better than "Dirty Work", despite the fact that "DW" contained a top 5 single.

The Stones just need a good album (IMO ABB was a good one) and they also need good marketing ("Universal" seems able to do good job).

Agreed, and shorten the freakin' album by a few songs.

ABB was essentially a 'double-album' (wasn't it longer than EXILE?), as was BTB and even Voodoo Lounge. Each one had their fair share of good material, but it wasn't all good by a long shot.

ENOUGH already! Give us 10-12 songs, no more. Write and record 20 songs and give us the best half.

I appreciate their songwriting skills, but I might appreciate their editing skills even more!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stickydion
Why do people believe that a top 5 single is something indispensable?

Look at the facts..

According to Wikipedia, "Love is Strong" became "the lowest charting first single ever by the band", atleast in the US market. But, if i'm remember correctly, "Voodoo Lounge" became the best selling Stones album since 1981!

ABB album have sold better than "Dirty Work", despite the fact that "DW" contained a top 5 single.

The Stones just need a good album (IMO ABB was a good one) and they also need good marketing ("Universal" seems able to do good job).

Agreed, and shorten the freakin' album by a few songs.

ABB was essentially a 'double-album' (wasn't it longer than EXILE?), as was BTB and even Voodoo Lounge. Each one had their fair share of good material, but it wasn't all good by a long shot.

ENOUGH already! Give us 10-12 songs, no more. Write and record 20 songs and give us the best half.

I appreciate their songwriting skills, but I might appreciate their editing skills even more!

Does anyone have Keith or Mick's phone number? I would like to tell them exactly what you said. How can I call them up?

Quote
Havo
If they really want to go-on--they need a smash hit-single

When was the last time Paul McCartney had a smash hit single? Twenty-five, maybe thirty years ago? He seems to be doing okay.

Maybe they could re-release "Come On" and see what happens after that.

A top five single would be a nice little feather in the cap, however, I agree that a real solid album would be much more beneficial at this stage of their career, not only in terms of launching another tour but also in terms of continuing to grow their legacy.

The A Bigger Bang album obviously didn't do anything to enhance their legacy, fortunately, the Bigger Bang tour did. The recent re release of Exile and the ten old/new tracks was definitely a nice recovery from the disappointing A Bigger Bang album. Hopefully the momentum from Exile will carry over into the studio resulting in a new album we can all be proud of.

Quote
tatters

Quote
Havo
If they really want to go-on--they need a smash hit-single

When was the last time Paul McCartney had a smash hit single? Twenty-five, maybe thirty years ago? He seems to be doing okay.

with respect, Paulie is great, but he's not the rolling stones.

Quote
stonescrow
A top five single would be a nice little feather in the cap, however, I agree that a real solid album would be much more beneficial at this stage of their career, not only in terms of launching another tour but also in terms of continuing to grow their legacy.

The A Bigger Bang album obviously didn't do anything to enhance their legacy, fortunately, the Bigger Bang tour did. The recent re release of Exile and the ten old/new tracks was definitely a nice recovery from the disappointing A Bigger Bang album. Hopefully the momentum from Exile will carry over into the studio resulting in a new album we can all be proud of.

ABB was critically well-received and internationally number 1, top 5 in the US if I'm not mistaken (#2 in UK).

Only the single, 'Streets of Love', was panned, although not universally.

That said, aren't we confirming the theme of this thread?

I suspect that the days of the Rolling Stones as a hit record source ended decades ago. Moreover, they need to stop trying for crossover hits on the first single, as they did the last two studio albums with Anybody Seen My Baby and Streets of Love.

Most of their best singles are killer rock songs. So it would appear self-evident that they should write some.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-14 11:26 by baxlap.

Charts mean nothing nowadays as singles hardly sell anymore. Artists often don't even produce singles and videos anymore. MTV is only a real life soap channel/life style channel and people listen to songs on the radio or download them, watch them on Youtube with often fan produced clips or whatever. It's a totally different age. The music industry is struggling HARD and doesn't know how to handle its downfall! So what the Stones need? Well their long deserved rest. The overexposure since the mid 90's and following tours didn't do them any good I think and they will do good business on a 50th Anniversary Tour, I hope! No need for a hit.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
tatters

Quote
Havo
If they really want to go-on--they need a smash hit-single

When was the last time Paul McCartney had a smash hit single? Twenty-five, maybe thirty years ago? He seems to be doing okay.

with respect, Paulie is great, but he's not the rolling stones.

My point was that Paul, the guy who has had more hits than ANYONE, has long since ceased NEEDING to have hits in order to keep fans interested in what he's doing. The Stones don't need to have them either.

Quote
susannewortmann
Charts mean nothing nowadays as singles hardly sell anymore. Artists often don't even produce singles and videos anymore. MTV is only a real life soap channel/life style channel and people listen to songs on the radio or download them, watch them on Youtube with often fan produced clips or whatever. It's a totally different age. The music industry is struggling HARD and doesn't know how to handle its downfall! So what the Stones need? Well their long deserved rest. The overexposure since the mid 90's and following tours didn't do them any good I think and they will do good business on a 50th Anniversary Tour, I hope! No need for a hit.

You must have never heard of iTunes?


Singles do matter . . not 45 RPM singles , but iTune downloads. And hit singles create hit albums.


And the Stones could easily get another Top 5 hit . . if they put their mind to it and change personnel and producers. Even a washed-up has beens like Cher, Dionne Warwick, and Johnny Mathis had a major hits a few years ago . . and she was in her 60s.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-14 15:59 by mitchflorida.

Quote
James Kirk
They are capable of writing a great/very good single, but the question is will radio play a new single from a band whose lead singer is nearly 70 years old?

I don't think they need a top 5 single to go on. Few if any rock bands have crossover singles...What the Stones need to do is to produce a great record of mature music. Think Johnny Cash. Why would the Stones want to compete with Miley Cyrus and Lady Ga Ga at this point? They are above that nonsense.

Besides, it's not like the Stones can't sell tickets and both the "Exile" re-issue and "A Bigger Bang" hit #1 on the global album charts...Just make a great/mature record.

QFT

Keith has made it very clear that the Stones don't worry about hit singles.

Jagger might. But not the Stones. Albums are, commercially, almost a dead medium. As much as it would be cool to get another Stones album, in reality they don't need one. Especially if they do ever tour again.

However, if they do record a good single and put it on iTunes, if enough people get to hear it and it rocks then I think they would have a hit single again. They can't compete with Lady GooGoo and all the other shit out there because there's no need to compete with that shit. They'll just do what they do and that's it. Whether anyone notices or not is another subject.

Heard of Itunes but why bother downloading a CD at 10 bucks when you get it for free on the net!? Spare me the wise words about copyrights. I bought and still buy a LOT of CD's and vinyl, aswell as Blu Rays but I tunes download charts also mean Nothing! It's only marginal! And the Lady Gaga reference was a joke! We all know Jagger wishes to compete and be on track with todays younger artist like on Shine A Light with Christina Aguilera etc.

Quote
treaclefingers

ABB was critically well-received and internationally number 1, top 5 in the US if I'm not mistaken (#2 in UK).

Only the single, 'Streets of Love', was panned, although not universally.

You're correct about it getting good reviews.

However, a mediocre-selling record can still chart well on release, before sales rapidly taper off. Considering it was launched to promote a tour which outgrossed any other in history, where about 5-6 million fans paid an average of $170 a ticket, it could be said to have underperformed sales wise compared to what should have been expected by a band who were given such a lucrative contract. The Stones organisation really missed the boat by bombarding every would be customer or fan with kitsch and tacky merchandise, yet when you went to their shows, you could seemingly buy everything BUT their music - especially the record they were supposedly 'promoting'. For those ticket prices, they should have included the CD.

EMI marketed the Stones very poorly in the last few years of their contract, and their overall sales were quite mediocre for a band of their stature. It speaks volumes that the label is in huge financial trouble. Universal seem to have done a very good job so far with the Exile reissue, although initial first-year sales of the UMG remasters were appalling.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-15 00:48 by Gazza.