Does anyone find it surprising that the Stones overall record sales fall so short of bands like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and supposedly even Queen and Pink Floyd?

I've read that they are certified globally as over 100 million, with claims of 200 million but The Beatles and Zeppelin are certified globally over 200 million with claims of over 300 million. Still, their individual studio albums, even their classic ones, never sold as much as other bands classic albums. Some Girls is their biggest studio album and that was, IMO, because it was just hot for it's mainstream sound at the time. Next is Sticky Fingers, which you would think would be first, being such a classic.

Hot Rocks has sold tons, as a greatest hits, but a lot of it's certifications are because it's a double set and it receives credit for both discs. It's actually sold around the same as Some Girls.

Their double classic studio album, Exile, for some reason isn't even in the same stratosphere as The White Album, Physical Graffiti, in terms of sales, which for all it's accolades, is mind boggling.

Of Course they have the die hard following where every album was going gold or platinum, sort of like Elvis, with his many non smash albums, that were still hits.

It just surprises me that with the Stones being so legendary and having some of the biggest tours ever, that they don't have a (In terms of album sales) Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road, Zeppelin II, IV, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti, Dark Side of the Moon, type studio album.

But I read that they have sold a crap load of singles on iTunes

So are they perceived as a singles or signature song band and not so much a classic album band? If so there is certainly nothing wrong with that.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-19 04:42 by pricepittsburgh.

Stones have always been an album band, imo. If they are getting some singles sold on iTunes good for them but the entire album experience is what always got me. The work and thought that went into song selection, order and artwork was not lost on me and is sorely missing from the singles download experience.

And who knows what the actual album sales were with guys like Klein at the helm, they could easily have been double what was reported and he pocketed the extra cash.

peace

I think in a way, it hurts their records sales being an active band.

I've never really followed the numbers, and this is really interesting to me. I honestly had no idea that Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were more popular than the Stones, in terms of units moved. I had assumed that Sticky Fingers was one of the best selling records of all time. Even just within the Stones catalogue, I'm amazed that Some Girls sold more copies than Sticky Fingers, and I guess I'm showing my age, but when I was in high school *everyone* had Hot Rocks.

That's a very good and significant point that I never considered.

Bands that break up, tend to have their classic albums immortalized more.

Great call.

Quote
Naturalust
Stones have always been an album band, imo. If they are getting some singles sold on iTunes good for them but the entire album experience is what always got me. The work and thought that went into song selection, order and artwork was not lost on me and is sorely missing from the singles download experience.

And who knows what the actual album sales were with guys like Klein at the helm, they could easily have been double what was reported and he pocketed the extra cash.

peace

Ha, what you just said above, times 100 when talking about Led Zep. If there was ever an "album band" as opposed to a singles band, wouldn't LZ be a primo example, way more than the Stones?

Its an amazing thing to me as well, that The Stones have never been an enormously selling band. They have so many albums and almost all have sold well, so it adds up to a lot, but individually, they don't sell anywhere as near as Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin etc. Even in their heyday. I was a huge fan of the Stones starting in the early 70's and Exile was not a big seller, Goat's Head Soup has a #1 single and sold very well, but nothing like Zeppelin's numbers and It's Only Rock 'n ' Roll left charts quick. I didn't understand it then and still don't. The Stones had hit singles and huge tours, but the album sales always fell far behind as compared to Zeppelin, Floyd (who did not have hit singles then). Perhaps because Zeppelin and Floyds catalogs are rather small and compact and easy to grasp and buy versus the Stones' catalog.

It's interesting because The Beatles, biggest seller, "1" is also a greatest hits package, but they have all those other huge selling studio albums, years before "1" was released. It's almost as with the Stones, millions are content on owning their signature tracks over full studio albums.

But honestly, even though, as fans, we never feel like any one era is fully represented by a greatest hits, I honestly believe that Hot Rocks, is the most complete Best of compilation that has ever been put out to a buying public for a classic artist.

It's quite obivious. Pink Floyd and Zeppelin didn't put singles on charts. If you wanted to hear Stairway To Heaven you just had to buy whole IV album. It was Peter Grant idea. The same with Floyd. Altough they did Money a single, it was the only one dorm Dark Side. The next one was Another Brick In the Wall but it was always like one song. Anyway it is great music - Zepp and Floyd. Stones were and are touring band. On this are they are the best band ever (maybe U2 i close). They were focused more on singles then albums as well.
If we compare Stones sales to Beatles, let's be honest, fab four was always one step beyond any band.

The Beatles were an album band, The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

There have always been many other bands selling more albums than the Stones.

It's hardly a secret that Zeppelin and Pink Floyd outperformed the Stones in terms of sales. Hell, ABBA and Queen have probably sold more records than the Stones in the U.K. In my opinion, the Stones were slightly down the pecking-order of things during the 1970's. Behind the Beatles in the 60's, and behind Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in the 70's. The Stones could've been the bigger live-draw, though.

Quote
kammpberg
Perhaps because Zeppelin and Floyds catalogs are rather small and compact and easy to grasp and buy versus the Stones' catalog.

This. If a casual fan enters the record store with the intention of buying one Stones and one Zeppelin album, he will then own about 1/10 of LZ discography, but only 1/40 of the Stones discography.
For representative numbers, you would have to count all sold units in a given timeframe.

Quote
thrak
It's quite obivious. Pink Floyd and Zeppelin didn't put singles on charts. If you wanted to hear Stairway To Heaven you just had to buy whole IV album. It was Peter Grant idea. The same with Floyd. Altough they did Money a single, it was the only one dorm Dark Side. ...

This probably has a lot to do with it. The Stones became famous before albums was a big thing, and by the time they were making strong and tightly constructed albums such as Sticky Fingers, artists like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin were perhaps more hip to the youngsters and album buying public.

Plus, the Beatles were always a bit bigger, especially when it came to albums in the late 60s. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed were great, of course, but they only had a few famous songs and competition was hard from The White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be.

On the other hand, I don't know why the Stones' compilations haven't sold more.

A comparison with The Beatles sales is a non-starter. They had the best selling album of the 2000's, may have been the biggest boyband of the decade and if they ever manage a follow up they're guaranteed more sales unless they do a Guns n Roses. Considering 2 of the band were dead, one lost his voice and the other never had one and is ugly, they did really well to come up with such a catchy collection of tunes that was reminiscent of the music of the 1960s and yet still at it's best quite forward thinking. I think their producer was quite a good choice too. The Stones should take note.

On a more serious note, The Stones always had a (comparatively) very narrow audience and lost the screamy teeny's fairly quickly (by 1967??) which was not replaced by mum/dad/granny adult respect (until now !!).

Ask a member of the general public to name a Stones album.
ditto a Pink Floyd album
ditto a Beatle album.
I honestly can't think of anyone i know (outside my music circle) who could name a Stones album. They'd probably think for a minute and say er...greatest hits ?

Dylan's sales are bad too , obviously in comparative terms. Supposedly when he was trying to leave CBS in 1973(?), CBS's tactic was simply to show competitors his sales figures ! He's a prestige act.
Anyway, sales isn't a measure of quality. What are the top selling 5 Stones albums ? I bet they aren't their best five in this board's opinion.

I believe the answer is because the Stones make it so confusing to buy their music by churning out live and greatest hits albums gratuitously and often.

Imagine you are new to the Rolling Stones, maybe you heard Jumping Jack Flash on the radio.

What do you buy?

- it's not on any studio album
- it's on a ton of greatest hits albums.
- it's on a ton of live albums.

which one do you get?

Led Zeppelin doesn't even have a greatest hits album! And as mentioned they didn't even release singles.

As far as the Beatles, they were always in a different league.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

They would answer Exile, Some Girls or Hot Rocks (soon perhaps SF), because they've read about them.

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

Someone should get a you a copy of Physical Graffiti.

Quote
Turner68
Led Zeppelin doesn't even have a greatest hits album!

They put out Mothership. Better late than never.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Turner68
Led Zeppelin doesn't even have a greatest hits album!

They put out Mothership. Better late than never.

Ah I see. Well in fairness I haven't shopped for a Led Zeppelin album since they put out Coda, which was a true disaster.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

Someone should get a you a copy of Physical Graffiti.

True.

Since we're talking sales here, LieB, I think it's safe to say that Zeppelin both sold more studio albums and concert tickets than the Stones did in the 70s.

Then again, only the Stones lasted...

Quote
pricepittsburgh
It's interesting because The Beatles, biggest seller, "1" is also a greatest hits package, but they have all those other huge selling studio albums, years before "1" was released. It's almost as with the Stones, millions are content on owning their signature tracks over full studio albums.

But honestly, even though, as fans, we never feel like any one era is fully represented by a greatest hits, I honestly believe that Hot Rocks, is the most complete Best of compilation that has ever been put out to a buying public for a classic artist.

Well...while I also love Hot Rocks, can you really say it's complete, at least now?

Maybe your just referring to that time in 1972 when it was released, because obviously 40 licks and GRRR! might be considered more 'complete' and representative.

Stones have always been for the connoisseurs, which is one of my favorite things about them.

Alanis Morissette, Boston, Hootie — they've had massive album sales. But who cares?

Quote
Mel Belli
Stones have always been for the connoisseurs, which is one of my favorite things about them.

Alanis Morissette, Boston, Hootie — they've had massive album sales. But who cares?

Moms. They like to see their offspring do well...

I'm the OP, and I agree that sales are not always a good measuring stick, and for what it's worth, The Stones have sold a ton. It's not like their sales are average by any stretch of the imagination. It's true that a lot of irrelevant artist sell a lot too, but those sales are early in the career only, while they are a flash in the pan. my point about the Stones is that, over the course of 50 years, in comparison to other classic rock bands, they have under performed some.

[list25.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

These links aren't 100 % accurate, but they're pretty objective and give a more reasonable breakdown.

Obviously, the digital era for some artists have changed the game and now than streaming is being considered, it's really going to get misleading.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-19 16:49 by pricepittsburgh.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

Someone should get a you a copy of Physical Graffiti.

I've had it for years. And it's easily one of my favourite Zep albums.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

Someone should get a you a copy of Physical Graffiti.

True.

Since we're talking sales here, LieB, I think it's safe to say that Zeppelin both sold more studio albums and concert tickets than the Stones did in the 70s.

Then again, only the Stones lasted...

Zeppelin sold more concert tickets in the 70s because they toured more often. The Stones were the bigger attraction when they did tour. I know Zeppelin in the cause of myth making always went around telling everyone they were the bigger attraction but it wasn't true. I am always surprised how often Zeppelin fans repeat it like a reflex.

you either loved the stones are u hated them, no in between,thats the public perception ive had of them for as long as I can remember, so with that in mind,there was no way, they were going to outsale the beatles, zeppelin or hell for that matter the bee gees,the stones music is not pretty and sweet and some will never like it,

Quote
stanlove

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones were a live band and Led Zep were both...

I disagree, I think it's the other way around. Or, I guess both were both. Led Zep's albums were ambitious, but they didn't put much more than a four piece band on their albums, whereas the Stones created dense soundscapes with many instruments, sounds, musicians, etc. The great difference between Sympathy for the Devil on Beggars and Ya-Ya's, or between Angie on Goats and Brussels Affair is one of the reasons I think they're so enjoyable to listen to and discover.

Someone should get a you a copy of Physical Graffiti.

True.

Since we're talking sales here, LieB, I think it's safe to say that Zeppelin both sold more studio albums and concert tickets than the Stones did in the 70s.

Then again, only the Stones lasted...

Zeppelin sold more concert tickets in the 70s because they toured more often. The Stones were the bigger attraction when they did tour. I know Zeppelin in the cause of myth making always went around telling everyone they were the bigger attraction but it wasn't true. I am always surprised how often Zeppelin fans repeat it like a reflex.

Well, you can't accuse me for being a big fan

But the last time we discussed this, someone showed numbers from individual 70s tours that surpassed the Stones's numbers.

Stones fans have to spend their money on expansive concert tickets, i.e. concert tickets absorb their buying power