Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Led Zeppelin created stadium rock. They were the band that finally broke the Beatles' Shea Stadium attendance record when they played to 56,000 fans at Tampa Stadium, and in 1977 they set a world record for attendance at an indoor stadium by playing for 76,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome.

Their 1973 tour grossed much more than the Stones 1981 tour if you adjust for inflation.

I think the Stones are much better and history will remember them as true groundbreakers second only for the Beatles. But Led Zeppelin was bigger than the Stones in the 1970s in every possible way.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Led Zeppelin created stadium rock. They were the band that finally broke the Beatles' Shea Stadium attendance record when they played to 56,000 fans at Tampa Stadium, and in 1977 they set a world record for attendance at an indoor stadium by playing for 76,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome.

Their 1973 tour grossed much more than the Stones 1981 tour if you adjust for inflation.

I think the Stones are much better and history will remember them as true groundbreakers second only for the Beatles. But Led Zeppelin was bigger than the Stones in the 1970s in every possible way.

yeah Zeppelin did tour more in the 70s than the Stones, but I think that helped the Stones, because they only toured every 3 years or so. That aided to the build up of them being back on the road. Zeppelin's demand as a live act in the 70s was sick. They toured almost every year and kept getting bigger and bigger, with no drop of in attendance and sales. Their O2 reunion gig in 07, had 20 million request for tickets. I think had the Beatles stayed together and toured, we would have seen similar results.

I think the Stones image in their heyday, is always sort of caught in between the 60s Beatles and 70s Zeppelin. It actually took both the other bands being disbanded for the Stones to finally enjoy being the biggest rock and roll band in the world during the Tattoo You tour.

But being slightly in the shadow of 2 such great bands is not a bad thing. Hell, a million other bands would take that in a heartbeat.

I'm sure The Who wish they were as big as the Stones lol



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-19 18:04 by pricepittsburgh.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I have seen the arguments. Zeppelin backers always try to claim that Zeppelin was bigger and point to their record breaking 73 show and maybe another one. But the fact is the Stones broke attendance records all the time in the 1970s. I have seen the list of biggest concerts. I just saw the list of the biggest 249 concerts ever.

From the 1970s the Stones are on that list 6 times at numbers 23,68,74.78.79, and 168. Zeppelin is on it once at 115. And the Stones charged more for tickets.

Zeppelin backers always cherry pick the record breaking Zeppelin shows and ignore the Stones record breaking shows.

For example they both toured in 1975 and the Stones tour was a lot bigger. They played in front of 81,000 in KC and 80,000 in Buffalo which were both bigger then any Zeppelin show ever.

No real argument can be made that Zeppelin was a bigger attraction unless you want to just bring up that they toured more often.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-19 18:13 by stanlove.

Now come on, remember your earliest pre-high school Mathematics class before making up theories: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin (even less) or Pink Floyd have maybe a maximum of 10 long players to take into consideration as big sellers.
200 or even 300 million divided through 10?!
A mark of 20 million copies sold was maybe reached by Saturday Night Fever first and then by Thriller (and even he didn't get close to that figure another time) and both were way after or at the end of the bands mentioned. I remember Mark Knopfler saying to be in doubt whether he has delivered quality with Brothers In Arms at 8 millions sold.
There might be a boom in the 80s with replacing vinyl collections with cds but I'm sure Led Zep didn't participate that much in that whereas the Stones were an active recording act still.
Album sales peaked in the 80s and 90s but there rarely was a record with more than 10 million copies still.
I'm not even sure whether early Beatles albums have fared well in reissues - as they are simply of bad quality except the really outstanding quality of the singles.
The main figures are due to samplers with nill on Led Zep's or Pink Floyd's side (live records can be neglected here).
Do you count in singles sales in those millions?
This is a bit like the statistics on the wealth handled here one or two weeks ago. In that case, I never really read something about calculations on how much one makes in dividends (money earning money), only some silly additions (without which tax paid) of income.

Quote
JJHMick
Now come on, remember your earliest pre-high school Mathematics class before making up theories: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin (even less) or Pink Floyd have maybe a maximum of 10 long players to take into consideration as big sellers.
200 or even 300 million divided through 10?!
A mark of 20 million copies sold was maybe reached by Saturday Night Fever first and then by Thriller (and even he didn't get close to that figure another time) and both were way after or at the end of the bands mentioned. I remember Mark Knopfler saying to be in doubt whether he has delivered quality with Brothers In Arms at 8 millions sold.
There might be a boom in the 80s with replacing vinyl collections with cds but I'm sure Led Zep didn't participate that much in that whereas the Stones were an active recording act still.
Album sales peaked in the 80s and 90s but there rarely was a record with more than 10 million copies still.
I'm not even sure whether early Beatles albums have fared well in reissues - as they are simply of bad quality except the really outstanding quality of the singles.
The main figures are due to samplers with nill on Led Zep's or Pink Floyd's side (live records can be neglected here).
Do you count in singles sales in those millions?
This is a bit like the statistics on the wealth handled here one or two weeks ago. In that case, I never really read something about calculations on how much one makes in dividends (money earning money), only some silly additions (without which tax paid) of income.

Here are the lists of all the released albums, singles and EPs of each band, which includes all best of compilations, box sets, live albums and rarities. Included is all the sales certifications of each release.



[en.wikipedia.org] Beatles

[en.wikipedia.org] Zeppelin

[en.wikipedia.org] Stones



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-19 23:49 by pricepittsburgh.

Thank you, pricepittsburgh, that'll be a lot of calculations to be done - as figures for Gold, Platinum and so on changed from decade to decade and differ from country to country.

Actual Sales...What about Stolen Records...thru the 60's and 70's that number has to be an astronomical !!!

A lot of the Beatles subsequent sales had to do with people sheepishly replacing the albums they'd burned after the Lennon bigger than Jesus comment.

Quote
JJHMick
Thank you, pricepittsburgh, that'll be a lot of calculations to be done - as figures for Gold, Platinum and so on changed from decade to decade and differ from country to country.

I only posted those links to show you that all three bands have many more albums than just the ones we think off of the top of our heads.

These two links actually consider what each certification means during a time period or various part of the world.

[list25.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Haven't albums like Dark Side Of The Moon sold more than 5-6 Stones albums combined?

would any of you like to compare box office receipts from any of those bands to the rolling stones.

-i'm sure bon jovi sold more records than jimi hendrix and aerosmith has sold more than the who,records sales dont mean shit in rock and roll.

it's all about that live action baby,and the stones fcking own it.

I agree, but the smaller catalogue of the Beatles and Led Zep was used as an example of Stones surpassing the others in volume sales. I doubt that.

The Stones are the kings of live music and shows. No doubt there..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 01:25 by DandelionPowderman.

No doubt the Stones are Kings of the Road, but one of the main reasons behind tours (Next to making ticket sales cash) is to support album sales.

Quote
JJHMick
Now come on, remember your earliest pre-high school Mathematics class before making up theories: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin (even less) or Pink Floyd have maybe a maximum of 10 long players to take into consideration as big sellers.
200 or even 300 million divided through 10?!
A mark of 20 million copies sold was maybe reached by Saturday Night Fever first and then by Thriller (and even he didn't get close to that figure another time) and both were way after or at the end of the bands mentioned. I remember Mark Knopfler saying to be in doubt whether he has delivered quality with Brothers In Arms at 8 millions sold.
There might be a boom in the 80s with replacing vinyl collections with cds but I'm sure Led Zep didn't participate that much in that whereas the Stones were an active recording act still.
Album sales peaked in the 80s and 90s but there rarely was a record with more than 10 million copies still.
I'm not even sure whether early Beatles albums have fared well in reissues - as they are simply of bad quality except the really outstanding quality of the singles.
The main figures are due to samplers with nill on Led Zep's or Pink Floyd's side (live records can be neglected here).
Do you count in singles sales in those millions?
This is a bit like the statistics on the wealth handled here one or two weeks ago. In that case, I never really read something about calculations on how much one makes in dividends (money earning money), only some silly additions (without which tax paid) of income.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For example, the Beatles are the best selling rock group of the 1991-2011 period. They sold 63 million albums in that 20-year stretch. Metallica was #2, they sold 53 million. Pink Floyd was third with 37 million.

This is just for the 1991-2011 period.

So the whole premise of this thread is that sales reflect quality?

(Does anyone find it surprising that the Stones overall record sales fall so short". . ." )

When I look at who outsold the Stones in (pick any year, pretty much) I come to the conclusion that popularity and quality are unrelated. So, it is not surprising.

Quote
Rokyfan
So the whole premise of this thread is that sales reflect quality?

(Does anyone find it surprising that the Stones overall record sales fall so short". . ." )

When I look at who outsold the Stones in (pick any year, pretty much) I come to the conclusion that popularity and quality are unrelated. So, it is not surprising.

I agree.

Quote
Rokyfan
So the whole premise of this thread is that sales reflect quality?

(Does anyone find it surprising that the Stones overall record sales fall so short". . ." )

When I look at who outsold the Stones in (pick any year, pretty much) I come to the conclusion that popularity and quality are unrelated. So, it is not surprising.

By no means. I posted it in comparison to other great classic bands. I don't consider the flash in the pan artists who weren't actual musicians as applicable. I'm talking about bands who still matter all these years later. I just found it odd (not that Stones haven't sold more, because they have sold quite a bit. 100 million plus is nothing to sneeze at.) Just that they don't have that huge individual mega studio album and that they aren't pushing the 200 million certified (This includes singles as well) that others are pushing or have surpassed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 02:10 by pricepittsburgh.

While I have no "theories", some actual facts should help clear up the misinformation you have been told or read.

First, let's talk about the U.S. for example:
Soundscan has recorded the Stones have outsold Led Zeppelin in total album sales 1991-2013:

The Beatles - 56m
Pink Floyd - 35m
U2 - 33m
Elvis Presley - 30m
Aerosmith - 29m
AC/DC - 27m
Rolling Stones - 26m
Led Zeppelin - 25m

Second, the Rolling Stones have sold more digital singles than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd have sold albums. The Stones had sold over 6,000,000 songs digitally between 2006-2008 only in the U.S according to Soundscan. Paint It Black was named best selling song of the 1960's in 2007 with 400,000 copies sold and now must be close (or over to) 2.000,000 copies. Sympathy for the Devil is approaching 1,500,000 digital sales and Gimme Shelter has sold over 1,000.000 too.

Third, the Stones were always promoted as a singles band, which were bought by the millions, far surpassing Floyd or Zeppelin. All those millions of singles aren't included on album sales lists.

Fourth, the Stones have more compilation albums than they have studio albums, while Zeppelin and Floyd have one or two, which cuts down album sales. Take for example one of the most popular songs of the Stones: Brown Sugar. The single sold well over 500,000 copies in U.S. upon relase. Then it was on Sticky Fingers, which has sold around 3.500,000-4.000,000 copies. Then only 6 months later it was on Hot Rocks, which sold 7-8 millions more. Then it was on Made in the Shade, which sold well over 1,000,000 copies. Then it was on Rewind, which sold over 500,000 copies. Then it was London Years, which sold almost 1,000,000 copies even with triple counting. THEN it was on Forty Licks which sold almost 3,000,000 copies, THEN it was on Jump Back which has sold nearly 2,000,000 copies by Soundscan, THEN it was on GRRR! which has sold nearly 300,000 copies and then we have the live albums too, it's on Love You Live (over a million copies sold), Flashpoint (another million) and Live Licks/Shine a Light/Hyde Park Live (close to 500,000 copies combined). Add all that up and you get close to 23,000,000 copies of Brown Sugar sold in the U.S. alone! This doesn't even include the digital sales of Brown Sugar!

And last, people like Stones SONGS, not the albums they are on, as reflected above. They have no album that was an entity unto itself such as The Wall, ZEP IV or DSOTH. People buy whatever has the songs they want. Hot Rocks itself has probably sold at or beyond the 10,000,000 copy mark (about 60,000-70,000 copies this year alone so far), even when not counting it double as the RIAA might (this is debatable as it was released on a SINGLE (not double) 8 track tape and a SINGLE cassette for many years).

Hope that helps ease our minds.

Quote
georgelicks
While I have no "theories", some actual facts should help clear up the misinformation you have been told or read.

First, let's talk about the U.S. for example:
Soundscan has recorded the Stones have outsold Led Zeppelin in total album sales 1991-2013:

The Beatles - 56m
Pink Floyd - 35m
U2 - 33m
Elvis Presley - 30m
Aerosmith - 29m
AC/DC - 27m
Rolling Stones - 26m
Led Zeppelin - 25m

Second, the Rolling Stones have sold more digital singles than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd have sold albums. The Stones had sold over 6,000,000 songs digitally between 2006-2008 only in the U.S according to Soundscan. Paint It Black was named best selling song of the 1960's in 2007 with 400,000 copies sold and now must be close (or over to) 2.000,000 copies. Sympathy for the Devil is approaching 1,500,000 digital sales and Gimme Shelter has sold over 1,000.000 too.

Third, the Stones were always promoted as a singles band, which were bought by the millions, far surpassing Floyd or Zeppelin. All those millions of singles aren't included on album sales lists.

Fourth, the Stones have more compilation albums than they have studio albums, while Zeppelin and Floyd have one or two, which cuts down album sales. Take for example one of the most popular songs of the Stones: Brown Sugar. The single sold well over 500,000 copies in U.S. upon relase. Then it was on Sticky Fingers, which has sold around 3.500,000-4.000,000 copies. Then only 6 months later it was on Hot Rocks, which sold 7-8 millions more. Then it was on Made in the Shade, which sold well over 1,000,000 copies. Then it was on Rewind, which sold over 500,000 copies. Then it was London Years, which sold almost 1,000,000 copies even with triple counting. THEN it was on Forty Licks which sold almost 3,000,000 copies, THEN it was on Jump Back which has sold nearly 2,000,000 copies by Soundscan, THEN it was on GRRR! which has sold nearly 300,000 copies and then we have the live albums too, it's on Love You Live (over a million copies sold), Flashpoint (another million) and Live Licks/Shine a Light/Hyde Park Live (close to 500,000 copies combined). Add all that up and you get close to 23,000,000 copies of Brown Sugar sold in the U.S. alone! This doesn't even include the digital sales of Brown Sugar!

And last, people like Stones SONGS, not the albums they are on, as reflected above. They have no album that was an entity unto itself such as The Wall, ZEP IV or DSOTH. People buy whatever has the songs they want. Hot Rocks itself has probably sold at or beyond the 10,000,000 copy mark (about 60,000-70,000 copies this year alone so far), even when not counting it double as the RIAA might (this is debatable as it was released on a SINGLE (not double) 8 track tape and a SINGLE cassette for many years).

Hope that helps ease our minds.

^^^ cool



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 03:21 by Leonioid.

Quote
treaclefingers
A lot of the Beatles subsequent sales had to do with people sheepishly replacing the albums they'd burned after the Lennon bigger than Jesus comment.

That was mainly in the south...those people never recovered they are still burning crosses and fighting the cival war. My guess is none of them ever bought another album of any kind. How many do you think they really burned ??? a couple thousand maybe ???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 03:40 by 2120Wolf.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

Led Zeppelin created stadium rock. They were the band that finally broke the Beatles' Shea Stadium attendance record when they played to 56,000 fans at Tampa Stadium, and in 1977 they set a world record for attendance at an indoor stadium by playing for 76,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome.

Their 1973 tour grossed much more than the Stones 1981 tour if you adjust for inflation.

I think the Stones are much better and history will remember them as true groundbreakers second only for the Beatles. But Led Zeppelin was bigger than the Stones in the 1970s in every possible way.

THis is actually what I am talking about with the Zeppelin myth. The Zeppelin 1973 tour grossed more then the Stones 1981 tour? What..Not even close.
The Stones 1975 tour blew Zeppelin 1973 or 1975 tours away in terms of gross. I have never understood these claims from Zeppelin people. The Stones charged more per ticket and played bigger crowds in 1975 then Zeppelin did in 1973 or 1975. Yes somehow Zeppelin people always claim they out grossed the Stones per concert. How is that possible? Sometimes I think Zeppelin people are just not that good at math.

Quote
georgelicks
While I have no "theories", some actual facts should help clear up the misinformation you have been told or read.

First, let's talk about the U.S. for example:
Soundscan has recorded the Stones have outsold Led Zeppelin in total album sales 1991-2013:

The Beatles - 56m
Pink Floyd - 35m
U2 - 33m
Elvis Presley - 30m
Aerosmith - 29m
AC/DC - 27m
Rolling Stones - 26m
Led Zeppelin - 25m

Second, the Rolling Stones have sold more digital singles than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd have sold albums. The Stones had sold over 6,000,000 songs digitally between 2006-2008 only in the U.S according to Soundscan. Paint It Black was named best selling song of the 1960's in 2007 with 400,000 copies sold and now must be close (or over to) 2.000,000 copies. Sympathy for the Devil is approaching 1,500,000 digital sales and Gimme Shelter has sold over 1,000.000 too.

Third, the Stones were always promoted as a singles band, which were bought by the millions, far surpassing Floyd or Zeppelin. All those millions of singles aren't included on album sales lists.

Fourth, the Stones have more compilation albums than they have studio albums, while Zeppelin and Floyd have one or two, which cuts down album sales. Take for example one of the most popular songs of the Stones: Brown Sugar. The single sold well over 500,000 copies in U.S. upon relase. Then it was on Sticky Fingers, which has sold around 3.500,000-4.000,000 copies. Then only 6 months later it was on Hot Rocks, which sold 7-8 millions more. Then it was on Made in the Shade, which sold well over 1,000,000 copies. Then it was on Rewind, which sold over 500,000 copies. Then it was London Years, which sold almost 1,000,000 copies even with triple counting. THEN it was on Forty Licks which sold almost 3,000,000 copies, THEN it was on Jump Back which has sold nearly 2,000,000 copies by Soundscan, THEN it was on GRRR! which has sold nearly 300,000 copies and then we have the live albums too, it's on Love You Live (over a million copies sold), Flashpoint (another million) and Live Licks/Shine a Light/Hyde Park Live (close to 500,000 copies combined). Add all that up and you get close to 23,000,000 copies of Brown Sugar sold in the U.S. alone! This doesn't even include the digital sales of Brown Sugar!

And last, people like Stones SONGS, not the albums they are on, as reflected above. They have no album that was an entity unto itself such as The Wall, ZEP IV or DSOTH. People buy whatever has the songs they want. Hot Rocks itself has probably sold at or beyond the 10,000,000 copy mark (about 60,000-70,000 copies this year alone so far), even when not counting it double as the RIAA might (this is debatable as it was released on a SINGLE (not double) 8 track tape and a SINGLE cassette for many years).

Hope that helps ease our minds.

I did as the OP, mention that the Stones have sold a lot of singles on iTunes.

I think one of my links I shared does show singles certifications even if not included in the final album tally.



But I agree with your point about them being seen as a singles band by many.
That's by no means a bad thing.
I think the reason their tours are always so huge is because half the audience wants to her the hits.

Their tours are a lot like McCartney solo tours.

How many of those fans own his solo studio albums vs just owning his solo greatest hits?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 04:27 by pricepittsburgh.

Quote
stanlove

THis is actually what I am talking about with the Zeppelin myth. The Zeppelin 1973 tour grossed more then the Stones 1981 tour? What..Not even close.
The Stones 1975 tour blew Zeppelin 1973 or 1975 tours away in terms of gross. I have never understood these claims from Zeppelin people. The Stones charged more per ticket and played bigger crowds in 1975 then Zeppelin did in 1973 or 1975. Yes somehow Zeppelin people always claim they out grossed the Stones per concert. How is that possible? Sometimes I think Zeppelin people are just not that good at math.

But I'd bet Zeppelin got more per show than the Stones back then. I understand Peter Grant was the one who started taking huge percentages of the gate for the band. Before he insisted on such, much of the profits went to the promoters. And who was going to argue with that guy?

peace

Let's take another Stones classic as Satisfaction:
The single: 1,5 m
Out Of Our Heads: 1,5 m
Big Hits: 3 m
Got Live If You Want It: 1 m
Hot Rocks: 8-10 m
Still Life: 1 m
Singles Collection: 1 m
Flashpoint: 1 m
40 Licks: 3 m
Grrr: 0,3 m
Live licks/SAL/Hyde Park: 0,5 m
Digital single: 0,7 m (as of 2013)

Total: 22-24 million copies sold in the U.S

Quote
georgelicks
Let's take another Stones classic as Satisfaction:
The single: 1,5 m
Out Of Our Heads: 1,5 m
Big Hits: 3 m
Got Live If You Want It: 1 m
Hot Rocks: 8-10 m
Still Life: 1 m
Singles Collection: 1 m
Flashpoint: 1 m
40 Licks: 3 m
Grrr: 0,3 m
Live licks/SAL/Hyde Park: 0,5 m
Digital single: 0,7 m (as of 2013)

Total: 22-24 million copies sold in the U.S

I see your point but we could do that with any individual song.

Stairway to Heaven right now as a stream is the biggest streamer of all classic tracks.

But even with it not being a single release back in the day it appears on many multiple platinum Zep live and best of compilations and has been downloaded a sick amount of times.

Quote
2120Wolf

Quote
treaclefingers
A lot of the Beatles subsequent sales had to do with people sheepishly replacing the albums they'd burned after the Lennon bigger than Jesus comment.

That was mainly in the south...those people never recovered they are still burning crosses and fighting the cival war. My guess is none of them ever bought another album of any kind. How many do you think they really burned ??? a couple thousand maybe ???

I might have been joking but I'll have to check and get back to you.

Well i bet the Stones totally kick The Beatles asses when it comes to sales of Rice Krispies....

Georgelicks the Deus ex Machina! Why starting a discussion? Why coming to the brink of being impolite to each other though we are fans of the same thing(s). It only needs Georgelicks (any "Eurosales"/Other continents expert around here?!): He explains the world to us. And makes us smile. The Stones fan is a digital native? I am really surprised.

Ok, next criteria: Almost all bands mentioned here have (that includes Abba or Queen) have a total period of creativity of about 10 years - then they dissolved. Ours have more than 50 years with a net sum of... well let Charlie answer it on an earlier Occasion '20 years of Rolling Stones? 10 years of working, 10 years hanging around'. That makes at least a net of 25 years. More than the others anyway...

Regarding live comparisons: I think the Stones always have been first to do big and unique tours. Say, 1975 first US tour stadiums only, 1982 first Europe tour stadiums only. The first to have played MSG something like a week or 10 times Tokyo Dome.

Is there no place for Michael Jackson in the statistics? He must have had some records in recording records?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-20 20:46 by JJHMick.

Stones must beat everyone by t-shirt sales, or overall clothing featuring their logo.

I would wager no one else even comes close.

Quote
JJHMick
Georgelicks the Deus ex Machina! Why starting a discussion? Why coming to the brink of being impolite to each other though we are fans of the same thing(s). It only needs Georgelicks (any "Eurosales"/Other continents expert around here?!): He explains the world to us. And makes us smile. The Stones fan is a digital native? I am really surprised.

Ok, next criteria: Almost all bands mentioned here have (that includes Abba or Queen) have a total period of creativity of about 10 years - then they dissolved. Ours have more than 50 years with a net sum of... well let Charlie answer it on an earlier Occasion '20 years of Rolling Stones? 10 years of working, 10 years hanging around'. That makes at least a net of 25 years. More than the others anyway...

Regarding live comparisons: I think the Stones always have been first to do big and unique tours. Say, 1975 first US tour stadiums only, 1982 first Europe tour stadiums only. The first to have played MSG something like a week or 10 times Tokyo Dome.

Is there no place for Michael Jackson in the statistics? He must have had some records in recording records?

Michael Jackson is mentioned in the links I shared as the OP. I was mainly talking about bands for this thread though.