Stuff sounds good (I'm told); but quite a bit of work left, and still uncertainty about which direction some of it will go.

Thanks for the infos, MelBelli.

I actually view this as a good sign. They're not rushing it to meet a deadline which has always been the case since Steel Wheels.

Quote
MelBelli
Stuff sounds good (I'm told); but quite a bit of work left, and still uncertainty about which direction some of it will go.

They've been working on this for years and they're not yet sure of their 'direction.' OK, got it.

Quote
Doxa
I think the biggest fear will be if the new album doesn't equal to the sales of BLUE & LONESOME. And it is not so easy to make a two million seller album today.

What they accomplished with BLUE & LONESOME was most likely something no one was able predict before; it was about the best selling album in the whole world around the christmas season. Some people think that it was because it was the first Rolling Stones new studio album for a decade or so, so that explains its great sales. Yeah, to an extent yeah, but I don't think that tells the whole story. From what I have read from the signs in the air, reading and hearing people buying and thinking about the record, some of its great sales is actually due to the fact that it wasn't a typical Rolling Stones album. It gathered an interest not just by the hardcore Stones fans, but a bigger audience being surprised by the very content of it. The music, so to say, speaks for itself. Relatively speaking, it was their biggest hit record maybe since TATTOO YOU or even SOME GIRLS. Both BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG were rather minor albums salewise compared to BLUE & LONESOME (of course, selling more absolutely, but clearly less relatively speaking).

So if we now will get a 'normal' Rolling Stones album, something to go along with the lines of A BIGGER BANG stylywise (more or less - it can't be much else, right?), it is interesting if it will get such a huge interest by buying audience. Will there be something distinguished to make it such a hit album? I don't think the idea that it's being a new Stones albums of originals is selling point an sich - for the 'big audience' that's probably something equal they've known for decades, call it STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG - nothing to really excite than a hardcore fan. I mean, 'everybody' knows things like "Doom & Gloom" or "Don't Stop" or "Love Is Strong"... 'Stones-by-numbers' - something everyone knows. The same shit. BLUE & LONESOME, by being something different by nature, surprised positively everybody.

My estimatation is that the great and surprising success of BLUE & LONESOME actually have made a some kind of (positive) problem for the Stones and their record company, and they are actually rather nervous of how the new album of originals might do. As funny it sounds, there is nothing extraordinary in it, unlike with BLUE & LONESOME. It surely will not 'look' good for the Stones if their new album of originals 'fails' in compared to BLUE & LONESOME.

- Doxa

The only flaw in this argument is that Blue & Lonesome, an utterly forgettable record by a once-proud band running on fumes, was a success only with the NPR/Starbucks/CBS Sunday Morning crowd. The record had no impact at all on people who actually drive the music business today—young people all over the world for whom streaming is the new paradigm. "Sales" of that record, which as you correctly note were only great in "relative" terms, are deceptive. How many people are actually listening, today, to Blue and Lonesome? It was a brilliantly-timed and craftily-themed release, a coffeehouse phenomenon that allowed those few segments of the music-consuming public who still buy physical music a branded trip down memory lane.

How many of those buyers do you think have actually played the record in the past 3 months? Hell, how many people on this board have played it in the past month?

While I find the interpretations of blues songs on this record to be unimaginative and slavishly faithful to the much more vibrant originals, I suppose it was possibly good news that there seemed to be a level of "band-ness" about the recordings, just a few guys getting together and jamming on some tunes they'd learned back when Hector was a pup. And another poster has raised the possibility of Blue & Lonesome being a precursor to a great album, the way Dylan two folk song collections preceded Time Out of Mind. These are interesting, potentially hopeful developments. But then ... we remember the original Jagger/Richards songs they've recorded over the past 3 or 4 decades ... and we hear from an 'insider" that there is still a lot of work to be done on this already-years-in-gestation project and that some of it even lacks a 'direction,' and we cannot help but wonder what fresh hell this record might represent.

The band might very well have serious worries about the public reaction to a new album of original songs ... but I cannot imagine that among them is a worry about measuring up to a record that made so little impact on popular music.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa
I think the biggest fear will be if the new album doesn't equal to the sales of BLUE & LONESOME. And it is not so easy to make a two million seller album today.

What they accomplished with BLUE & LONESOME was most likely something no one was able predict before; it was about the best selling album in the whole world around the christmas season. Some people think that it was because it was the first Rolling Stones new studio album for a decade or so, so that explains its great sales. Yeah, to an extent yeah, but I don't think that tells the whole story. From what I have read from the signs in the air, reading and hearing people buying and thinking about the record, some of its great sales is actually due to the fact that it wasn't a typical Rolling Stones album. It gathered an interest not just by the hardcore Stones fans, but a bigger audience being surprised by the very content of it. The music, so to say, speaks for itself. Relatively speaking, it was their biggest hit record maybe since TATTOO YOU or even SOME GIRLS. Both BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG were rather minor albums salewise compared to BLUE & LONESOME (of course, selling more absolutely, but clearly less relatively speaking).

So if we now will get a 'normal' Rolling Stones album, something to go along with the lines of A BIGGER BANG stylywise (more or less - it can't be much else, right?), it is interesting if it will get such a huge interest by buying audience. Will there be something distinguished to make it such a hit album? I don't think the idea that it's being a new Stones albums of originals is selling point an sich - for the 'big audience' that's probably something equal they've known for decades, call it STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG - nothing to really excite than a hardcore fan. I mean, 'everybody' knows things like "Doom & Gloom" or "Don't Stop" or "Love Is Strong"... 'Stones-by-numbers' - something everyone knows. The same shit. BLUE & LONESOME, by being something different by nature, surprised positively everybody.

My estimatation is that the great and surprising success of BLUE & LONESOME actually have made a some kind of (positive) problem for the Stones and their record company, and they are actually rather nervous of how the new album of originals might do. As funny it sounds, there is nothing extraordinary in it, unlike with BLUE & LONESOME. It surely will not 'look' good for the Stones if their new album of originals 'fails' in compared to BLUE & LONESOME.

- Doxa

How many of those buyers do you think have actually played the record in the past 3 months? Hell, how many people on this board have played it in the past month?

I, for one. It's a great record. It's The Stones PLAYING in a studio, rather than adding to, overdubbing, or "phoning in" individual parts via software.

IF the, any, new record of original material is PLAYED by the band in a studio, and not a pieced together 'project', I for one hold out some hope.

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012
...IF the, any, new record of original material is PLAYED by the band in a studio, and not a pieced together 'project', I for one hold out some hope...

I'd agree with that.

If the band is cooking it will sound great...regardless of what the material is, or how good it it's judged to be.

It's the noise this band makes that's always hooked me...not so much what they play.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Doxa
I think the biggest fear will be if the new album doesn't equal to the sales of BLUE & LONESOME. And it is not so easy to make a two million seller album today.

What they accomplished with BLUE & LONESOME was most likely something no one was able predict before; it was about the best selling album in the whole world around the christmas season. Some people think that it was because it was the first Rolling Stones new studio album for a decade or so, so that explains its great sales. Yeah, to an extent yeah, but I don't think that tells the whole story. From what I have read from the signs in the air, reading and hearing people buying and thinking about the record, some of its great sales is actually due to the fact that it wasn't a typical Rolling Stones album. It gathered an interest not just by the hardcore Stones fans, but a bigger audience being surprised by the very content of it. The music, so to say, speaks for itself. Relatively speaking, it was their biggest hit record maybe since TATTOO YOU or even SOME GIRLS. Both BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG were rather minor albums salewise compared to BLUE & LONESOME (of course, selling more absolutely, but clearly less relatively speaking).

So if we now will get a 'normal' Rolling Stones album, something to go along with the lines of A BIGGER BANG stylywise (more or less - it can't be much else, right?), it is interesting if it will get such a huge interest by buying audience. Will there be something distinguished to make it such a hit album? I don't think the idea that it's being a new Stones albums of originals is selling point an sich - for the 'big audience' that's probably something equal they've known for decades, call it STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG - nothing to really excite than a hardcore fan. I mean, 'everybody' knows things like "Doom & Gloom" or "Don't Stop" or "Love Is Strong"... 'Stones-by-numbers' - something everyone knows. The same shit. BLUE & LONESOME, by being something different by nature, surprised positively everybody.

My estimatation is that the great and surprising success of BLUE & LONESOME actually have made a some kind of (positive) problem for the Stones and their record company, and they are actually rather nervous of how the new album of originals might do. As funny it sounds, there is nothing extraordinary in it, unlike with BLUE & LONESOME. It surely will not 'look' good for the Stones if their new album of originals 'fails' in compared to BLUE & LONESOME.

- Doxa

The only flaw in this argument is that Blue & Lonesome, an utterly forgettable record by a once-proud band running on fumes, was a success only with the NPR/Starbucks/CBS Sunday Morning crowd. The record had no impact at all on people who actually drive the music business today—young people all over the world for whom streaming is the new paradigm. "Sales" of that record, which as you correctly note were only great in "relative" terms, are deceptive. How many people are actually listening, today, to Blue and Lonesome? It was a brilliantly-timed and craftily-themed release, a coffeehouse phenomenon that allowed those few segments of the music-consuming public who still buy physical music a branded trip down memory lane.

How many of those buyers do you think have actually played the record in the past 3 months? Hell, how many people on this board have played it in the past month?

While I find the interpretations of blues songs on this record to be unimaginative and slavishly faithful to the much more vibrant originals, I suppose it was possibly good news that there seemed to be a level of "band-ness" about the recordings, just a few guys getting together and jamming on some tunes they'd learned back when Hector was a pup. And another poster has raised the possibility of Blue & Lonesome being a precursor to a great album, the way Dylan two folk song collections preceded Time Out of Mind. These are interesting, potentially hopeful developments. But then ... we remember the original Jagger/Richards songs they've recorded over the past 3 or 4 decades ... and we hear from an 'insider" that there is still a lot of work to be done on this already-years-in-gestation project and that some of it even lacks a 'direction,' and we cannot help but wonder what fresh hell this record might represent.

The band might very well have serious worries about the public reaction to a new album of original songs ... but I cannot imagine that among them is a worry about measuring up to a record that made so little impact on popular music.

That's a good point about the changing of the paradigm in today's music business. BLUE & LONESOME was an 'old-time' record in many sense of the word, and it did damn bad in streaming business. And the latter correlates as you say with what 'popular music' today is, that is, what the kids are up to these days. And soon - quite soon - all of it will be just streaming. But the thing is that still now for a record company an old act like the Stones, whose potential audience consists still of those old farts mostly buying physical copies, is about the best thing they could have now. To get absolutely the same amount of money of almost 2 million sold physical copies - or 'old-time' downloads - in streaming business one would need to have a tremendous amount of streaming. Yeah, some acts do that - but a very few yet these days. The 'normal' mortals - and not these Michael Jacksons of the day - who might be compete with BLUE & LONESOME in chartwise, but the sales based mostly on streaming, are actually doing less money for their record company (and for themselves).

Yeah, we are living the last days of physical world of recorded music, but still there is enough of old farts doing such a thing as actually buying an album. And enough that the albums are doing nicely in chartwise. And number one is still a number one, no matter how 'wrongly' it was achieved (though, like said, the record companies surely still prefer this ancient way - and they surely milk out the business as long it lasts, which is to say, there will be a damn much of physical old time products in the following/remaining couple of years while the people buying that stuff are still alive)). A nice little PR thing that I guess still warms up the hearts of the people who have lived all their professional career following the charts and measuring up their success based on numbers like that. When EXILE re-entered #1 in British charts a couple of years ago, The Stones held a party for that in London. And that was nothing compared to the success of BLUE & LONESOME in their own homeland - so I am sure Mick & co, and their record company, aren't too unhappy how BLUE & LONESOME has done.

But that said, in regards to streaming business, I think it is interesting that it makes possible finally to measure the actual listening success/aspect of music. There's lots of things to consider there, but I don't go further here now.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 11:31 by Doxa.

The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

That's true but those numbers are damn far from any kind of 'hit' category...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

That's true but those numbers are damn far from any kind of 'hit' category...

- Doxa

We can't expect 70-75 year old musicians to make «hits», can we?

This album got the recognition and sales it deserved + turned on young people to the blues. We can't ask of more than that, imo.

To recapitulate my above by more metaphorical terms: I am sure a part of Mick Jagger would love to see the sales of a number one album to be consisted solely on streaming than of ancient physical/downlading sales as he would prefer the audiences of sold-out Stones shows to be consisted mostly of model-looking teenager girls than of old/middle-aged fat males, but I am sure that one part (the pragmatic and realistic side) of Mick Jagger is rather satisfied when the record company or the promoter of a tour comes up with their numbers...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

That's true but those numbers are damn far from any kind of 'hit' category...

- Doxa

We can't expect 70-75 year old musicians to make «hits», can we?

This album got the recognition and sales it deserved + turned on young people to the blues. We can't ask of more than that, imo.

You have said that a number of times, but are you sure?
I really think B&L didn't have any impact anywhere and didn't turn anybody to anything. None whatsoever. I bet more than 95% of youngsters (let's say between 16 and 21, "the age that matters" ) don't even know the album exists, and when you'd ask them about the Stones they'd say "yeah, those old guys who are still touring". They might think they're cool in some way. They might be able to mention "Satisfaction" or "Angie".
I don't say that to put down the album. I don't think Keith's solo albums had any impact either (nor Mick's, nor Ronnie's) except for a very small selected group of people, most of them older than 40.
The last time the Stones had any sort of impact was with Undercover (the single) and even then, in the middle of the punk/new-wave era, most young people didn't care much about them.
That's why I'd prefer them to stop even trying and caring, and instead do something absolutely out of whack, like I don't know, get inspired by Captain Beefheart, PIL, Kurtz Weill, Diamanda Galas, whatever.

Quote
Doxa
To recapitulate my above by more metaphorical terms: I am sure a part of Mick Jagger would love to see the sales of a number one album to be consisted solely on streaming than of ancient physical/downlading sales as he would prefer the audiences of sold-out Stones shows to be consisted mostly of model-looking teenager girls than of old/middle-aged fat males, but I am sure that one part (the pragmatic and realistic side) of Mick Jagger is rather satisfied when the record company or the promoter of a tour comes up with their numbers...

- Doxa

I remember Mick sitting in that interview with the Sticky Fingers re-issue on vinyl, grinning. He was probably thinking «God, I love that this is hip again»

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

That's true but those numbers are damn far from any kind of 'hit' category...

- Doxa

We can't expect 70-75 year old musicians to make «hits», can we?

This album got the recognition and sales it deserved + turned on young people to the blues. We can't ask of more than that, imo.

I am bit skeptical if the album actually functioned that way - that of "turning on young people to the blues" (no matter how nice that sounds like). If that had been the case, the streaming numbers should have been much more effective. My estimation is more like it succeeded mobilizing the potential mass of 'old farts' who are still buying albums, the ones already familiar with the blues idiom, but who hadn't heard anyone, and especially the Stones, doing such a thing for a long time as vibrantly.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The singles (Just Your Fool, Ride 'Em On Down and Hate To See You Go) have between 4 and 5 million streams on Spotify.

Some of the ol' farts are probably streaming, but I'm pretty sure a substantial number of youngsters have checked out our beloved blues group as well...

That's true but those numbers are damn far from any kind of 'hit' category...

- Doxa

We can't expect 70-75 year old musicians to make «hits», can we?

This album got the recognition and sales it deserved + turned on young people to the blues. We can't ask of more than that, imo.

I am bit skeptical if the album actually functioned that way - that of "turning on young people to the blues" (no matter how nice that sounds like). If that had been the case, the streaming numbers should have been much more effective. My estimation is more like it succeeded mobilizing the potential mass of 'old farts' who are still buying albums, the ones already familiar with the blues idiom, but who hadn't heard anyone, and especially the Stones, doing such a thing for a long time as vibrantly.

- Doxa

In matters like these, time will tell..

Quote
Bashlets
I actually view this as a good sign. They're not rushing it to meet a deadline which has always been the case since Steel Wheels.

Agree. Will be interesting to see the bands vibe this Fall, a hot tour could indicate a hot new album IMO.

Well Doxa you are quiet right it was only a bunch of old farts that either bought the album Blue & Lonesome or were given it as a Xmas present.
The Stones are not really relevant to the younger generation of 14- 18 yr old but earn their respect because they are still selling out concerts.
I recall when i was a 15yr spring chicken Stones and Beatlemania was all that teenagers talked about and that Frank Sinatra or Andy Williams were just old farts in comparison and dismissed accordingly.
The same still applies today and the Stones are not relevant to the younger generations and neither should they be.
Yet when you go to a Stones concert there are always at least 30% of the audience made up of 20 yr olds plus but do not buy their records.( apart from Hot Rocks)
For the Stones to have survived 54 yrs as a top Rock & Roll act is absolutely incredible and this has not been done before and will likely never be done again.

The Stones performance at Glastonbury was fantastic as they performed their most
famous songs to an incredible young audience greatest who are still talking about how great they were to this day.

Rolling Stones at Glastonbury 2013 – review
5 / 5 stars

After all these years, the Stones rise to the occasion of their Glastonbury debut – and clearly take huge pleasure in playing an extraordinary set together as reviewed below -



Dorian Lynskey
Sunday 30 June 2013 01.03 BST First published on Sunday 30 June 2013 01.03 BST
Who
The Rolling Stones

Where and when
Pyramid Stage, 9.30pm

Dress code
Glittery dandy (Mick), 1980s pirate (Keith), dapper gent (Charlie)

What happened
"After all these years they finally got round to asking us," deadpans Mick Jagger, wrily acknowledging Michael Eavis's annual efforts to get the Stones to the Pyramid stage. Having finally succumbed, the Stones are smart enough to rise to the occasion rather than treating it as just another gig. Jagger even sings a song he claims to have written the previous night, Glastonbury Girl, a charmingly daft ditty about wet wipes, wellies and MDMA. He prances across the stage with a playfully imperious air, secure in the knowledge that he's learned a trick or two over the past 51 years. Keith Richards is clearly not the guitarist he once was, but Ronnie Wood is much better than he was so it kind of balances out, and they still, after all these years, seem to take huge pleasure in playing these extraordinary songs together.

After going in hard with surefire hits like Jumping Jack Flash and Gimme Shelter, they stretch out in the middle with fan-friendly showcases for Richards (You Got the Silver) and ex-guitarist Mick Taylor (Can't You Hear Me Knocking), which thin the crowd a little but, frankly, if you can't stomach the Stones getting bluesy for a couple of songs then they're probably not the band for you. There's no shortage of diversity anyway: Miss You and the rarely performed 2000 Miles From Home show how they could get a handle on disco and psychedelia respectively.

The final stretch is simply staggering. During Sympathy for the Devil the scrap-metal phoenix at the top of the stage raises its wings and spurts jets of fire, while flares in the middle of the crowd produce suitably infernal red smoke. You Can't Always Get What You Want, with its soaring choir, is hugely moving, an anthem to acceptance which draws celebration from resignation. A raucous, extended Satisfaction sounds like one of rock music's holy relics. It drives home the realisation that the most patiently pursued headliners in Glastonbury's history have finally made it, and they're right here in front of us, and they're very, very good.

High point
Sympathy for the Devil. Phoenix. Fire. Woo-woo.

Low point
Midnight Rambler puts the emphasis on the rambling.

In a tweet
You can sometimes get what you want.

The Stones do not really sell records any longer but their live performances are the backbone of why people keep on buying high priced tickets to see them.

The long awaited new album ( if they ever decide to finish it or it is good enough to release or wait until they are gone ) will not sell any near the 2.0m total that Blue & Lonesome did as to music buylng fans their new music is not relevant.
They are giant legends of the music business especially in live concert but not for newly composed songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 12:57 by stones40.

<The long awaited new album ( if they ever decide to finish it or it is good enough to release or wait until they are gone ) will not sell any near the 2.0m total that Blue & Lonesome did as to music buylng fans their new music is not relevant>

Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

What do you mean? Those 2 million will be mostly Stones fans, and they bought it because they are Stones fans (and probably also like the blues). And mostly will be 40+. I got it for Xmas because I never know what to ask and it beats socks (and I never wear ties).

To go back to my initial point of seeing some worries of the possible success of a new album. The thing is that nobody (with some real knowledge of the business of today) couldn't estimate beforehand the relatively strong sales of BLUE & LONESOME . Probably the least of them Mick Jagger; the record company needed to convince him that a blues album could be 'popular'. And still, the record company, as was reported, wasn't even ready for its strong X-mas sales. They hadn't even produced enough copies for some markets. If I recall right, our georgelicks who knows more than any of us of these things, estimated beforehand that the album might sell some 700-800 000 copies, which would be good for today's market (and if I recall right, the record company was ready for about a million copies).

CROSSEYED HEART, the first big-profile Rolling Stones-related studio album for ages, sold some 300-400 000 copies if memory serves (and it was seen as a moderate success, making top ten in many charts, something unhearable for a Keith Richards solo album)). Most likely the people buying that album were die-hard or strong casual Rolling Stones fans. I guess for a fresh new Rolling Stones album the potential demand is, of course, bigger. I still don't believe that 2 million copies sold correlates directly with that demand - that of having a new Rolling Stones studio album for a decade or so. My estimation is something along the lines of georgelicks - let's say, a Stones album will sell about a million copies worldwide no matter what it includes - that of it being a fresh studio Stones album. There was something extra in that album which seemed to click with a potential audience - those I have called 'old farts' still buying albums. My guess is that the extra to attract the 'casual' buyers was that of (a) being the blues, a kind of DNA music not heard so vibrantly for ages, but anyone knowing anything about rock music 'recognizes' and 'loves'; (b) The Stones not sounding like a 'typical' Stones - The Stones surprising many positively.

Now with the brandnew album of originals facing us soon, they seem to have two obstacles in the way in compared to BLUE &LONESOME. That of (1) not being the first new album of the Stones for a decade (I guess for many casual buyers the reaction will be - 'What? a new STones album - again? Didn't they just released one?'). And that of (2) not having anything 'extra' in it to make a difference. Most likely it will just attract people who are satisfied with a 'typical' Stones music we've been treated for some decades now. Surely there are many people like that but would that correlate with 2 million sold copies (so it would be, relatively speaking, a much bigger success than any of their albums for decades - something SOME GIRLS-like in level). If they don't have anything more extraordinary than, say, "Doom&Gloom" type of a leading single to promote the album, it is pretty hard to think so.

But as it is speculating with matters like these, one can not really predict the future. The surprising success of BLUE & LONESOME is a clear reminder of that - no matter how 'easy' it is now afterwards to 'explain' its success.

(To not forget LongBeachArena72's important point about the nature of today's music business - I think the Stones and their record company are realistic enough in where their potential market is, and do not have any fancy dreams about conquering the streaming markets. They count on us 'old farts').

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 13:23 by Doxa.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

What do you mean? Those 2 million will be mostly Stones fans, and they bought it because they are Stones fans (and probably also like the blues). And mostly will be 40+. I got it for Xmas because I never know what to ask and it beats socks (and I never wear ties).

It's one more million people who bought this album than ABB. And that happened now – in times where people don't really buy a lot of physical albums. Way more people bought CDs in 2005.

So, yeah, I'm pretty sure there were others that were turned on this time. I bet Georgelicks can tell more about those numbers..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

What do you mean? Those 2 million will be mostly Stones fans, and they bought it because they are Stones fans (and probably also like the blues). And mostly will be 40+. I got it for Xmas because I never know what to ask and it beats socks (and I never wear ties).

It's one more million people who bought this album than ABB. And that happened now – in times where people don't really buy a lot of physical albums. Way more people bought CDs in 2005.

So, yeah, I'm pretty sure there were others that were turned on this time. I bet Georgelicks can tell more about those numbers..

Well, it was pretty obvious that B&L would be better (or at least safer) than ABB. I mean, ABB were "own songs", which already was a warning not to expect too much. Whereas B&L, well, it's blues, what can go wrong? Nothing.
I don't know what young people listen to (I am 47), but I doubt, I really doubt that anyone below 25 cares about or listens to the Stones. And I am pretty sure they don't know that B&L exists, except for a few exceptions.

I don't mind that, I think it's ok. I only wish they'd accept that too, and just would play for the hell of it. Not compete with anything. Not even try to make "a great album" again. If they're gonna make an album again, it will probably be their last. Why not let it all go? Just play one long single note and scream on top of it. They're old, death is near, they've been through a lot, I'm sure they could express a lot of wild emotions once they'd stop caring about what other people think. Actually, it might even be a way to get some youngsters interested (the weirdoos at least).

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

What do you mean? Those 2 million will be mostly Stones fans, and they bought it because they are Stones fans (and probably also like the blues). And mostly will be 40+. I got it for Xmas because I never know what to ask and it beats socks (and I never wear ties).

It's one more million people who bought this album than ABB. And that happened now – in times where people don't really buy a lot of physical albums. Way more people bought CDs in 2005.

So, yeah, I'm pretty sure there were others that were turned on this time. I bet Georgelicks can tell more about those numbers..

Well, it was pretty obvious that B&L would be better (or at least safer) than ABB. I mean, ABB were "own songs", which already was a warning not to expect too much. Whereas B&L, well, it's blues, what can go wrong? Nothing.
I don't know what young people listen to (I am 47), but I doubt, I really doubt that anyone below 25 cares about or listens to the Stones. And I am pretty sure they don't know that B&L exists, except for a few exceptions.

I don't mind that, I think it's ok. I only wish they'd accept that too, and just would play for the hell of it. Not compete with anything. Not even try to make "a great album" again. If they're gonna make an album again, it will probably be their last. Why not let it all go? Just play one long single note and scream on top of it. They're old, death is near, they've been through a lot, I'm sure they could express a lot of wild emotions once they'd stop caring about what other people think. Actually, it might even be a way to get some youngsters interested (the weirdoos at least).

Lots of young people commenting here, though.

Might be because of Stewart, of course, but...

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Dandie, don't underestimate the power of old farts - there are a couple of rock generations who were brought up by buying albums (and who lived in a world in where rock music was a main stream pop thing), and some of them still do that by habit in addition to putting incredible sums in attending to concerts. The Stones are very wealthy men because of these people, buying records and going to concerts. I am sure that even Mick Jagger knows this...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 13:51 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Dandie, don't underestimate the power of old farts - there are a couple of rock generations who were brought up by buying albums (and who lived in a world in where rock music was a main stream pop thing), and some of them still do that by habit in addition to putting incredible sums in attending to concerts. The Stones are very wealthy men because of these people, buying records and going to concerts. I am sure that even Mick Jagger knows this...

- Doxa

But those ol' farts haven't really been digging in their pockets since Voodoo Lounge. Did they all collectively do that now, because it was a cover album?

My guess is that B&L became a hype, or was «trending», leading also to new buyers. Remember that 2 million physical products sold today is an amazing number, even for the Stones.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Dandie, don't underestimate the power of old farts - there are a couple of rock generations who were brought up by buying albums (and who lived in a world in where rock music was a main stream pop thing), and some of them still do that by habit in addition to putting incredible sums in attending to concerts. The Stones are very wealthy men because of these people, buying records and going to concerts. I am sure that even Mick Jagger knows this...

- Doxa

This is very true. Way to go Doxy

See we can agree sometimes

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Dandie, don't underestimate the power of old farts - there are a couple of rock generations who were brought up by buying albums (and who lived in a world in where rock music was a main stream pop thing), and some of them still do that by habit in addition to putting incredible sums in attending to concerts. The Stones are very wealthy men because of these people, buying records and going to concerts. I am sure that even Mick Jagger knows this...

- Doxa

But those ol' farts haven't really been digging in their pockets since Voodoo Lounge. Did they all collectively do that now, because it was a cover album?

My guess is that B&L became a hype, or was «trending», leading also to new buyers. Remember that 2 million physical products sold today is an amazing number, even for the Stones.

Yes, I think the sales of BLUE & LONESOME are to be explained more the Stones actually succeeding to attract again some potential - not necessarily a big Stones fan - people who have probably bored with their same-sounding records for ages - than for them to find some totally new audiences. It is not because BLUE & LONESOME is a "cover album"; it is is because what it sounds like - sounding positively different than a typical Stones album a'la VOODOO LOUGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG - albums only a hardcore fan can really differentiate one from the other (and none of them including any new "Brown Sugar" or "Start Me Up" to make a real difference). Add there that blues music is an idiom anyone brought in rock music is somehow aware of. Of course, it hasn't an obvious commercial character, but the Stones - seemingly unintentionally - managed to touch the right sentiment at the right time (so unlike matxil I don't think it was a safe choice initially at all). I agree that there was a "trend" or even a "hype" around the album - but only among the 'old farts' (who, by definition, are about the ones still buying old-time physical copies - plus some "weirdos" (a good one, matxil) - from a younger generation)...

Another thing to notice is that the competition isn't such huge as it once was - there aren't that many oldies acts any longer to remind us of the great old days of rock music. But there are still a lot of us old farts hungry for some new music from the old heroes...

Of course, I would love to think that the Stones have managed to discover a brandnew, young audience, but nothing I think indicates so. But then again, I haven't yet interviewd all the 2 million people who have brought the album so who knows hahaha...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 15:19 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Do you think that 2 million people bought it because it was a blues cover album?

If so, someone else than the regular «ol' farts» must have bought it, right?

Dandie, don't underestimate the power of old farts - there are a couple of rock generations who were brought up by buying albums (and who lived in a world in where rock music was a main stream pop thing), and some of them still do that by habit in addition to putting incredible sums in attending to concerts. The Stones are very wealthy men because of these people, buying records and going to concerts. I am sure that even Mick Jagger knows this...

- Doxa

But those ol' farts haven't really been digging in their pockets since Voodoo Lounge. Did they all collectively do that now, because it was a cover album?

My guess is that B&L became a hype, or was «trending», leading also to new buyers. Remember that 2 million physical products sold today is an amazing number, even for the Stones.

Yes, I think the sales of BLUE & LONESOME are to be explained more the Stones actually succeeding to attract again some potential - not necessarily a big Stones fan - people who have probably bored with their same-sounding records for ages - than to find some totally new audiences. It is not because BLUE & LONESOME is a "cover album"; it is is because what it sounds like - sounding positively different than a typical Stones album a'la VOODOO LOUGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG - albums only a hardcore fan can really differentiate from one to other. Add there that blues music is an idiom anyone brought in rock music is somehow aware of. Of course, it hasn't an obvious commercial character, but the Stones - seemingly unintentionally - managed to touch the right sentiment at the right time (so unlike matxil I don't think it was a safe choice initially at all). I agree that there was a "trend" or even a "hype" around the album - but only among the 'old farts' (who, by definition, are about the ones still buying old-time physical copies - plus some "weirdos" (a good one, matxil) - from a younger generation)...

Another thing to notice is that the competition isn't such huge as it once was - there aren't that many oldies acts any longer to remind us of the great old days of rock music. But there are still a lot of us old farts hungry for some new music from the old heroes...

Of course, I would love to think that the Stones have managed to discover a brandnew, young audience, but nothing I think indicates so. But then again, I haven't yet interviewd all the 2 million people who have brought the album so who knows hahaha...

- Doxa

I'm making an early prediction the new album sells at least 1.5 million. I've rethought the 40 minute length and wouldn't mind them releasing two 40 minute discs. Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows......

Maindefender, my prediction will be around the same - 1.5 millions. A million sold by just their name (enough of hardcore and strong casual fans who buy anything), and a half by some casual 'old farts'(which actually involves a prediction that it is a good, noticable album). A very good number, though.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-22 15:49 by Doxa.