IMO Let It Bleed is probably the best album anyone ever recorded (just imagine if they included Honky Tonk Women on it along with Country Honk). At the time it was released they were inarguably one of the 2-3 biggest bands in the word, and at their cultural and artistic peak. The songs on it are world famous (Shelter, You Can't Always Get..., Rambler, etc.) and the album cuts are killer (Live With Me, Silver...). And yet, I think it sold roughly as well as It's Only R n' R and less copies than Goats Head Soup. Head scratcher. Why wasn't this (and Sticky Fingers as well) up in Rumors territory??

They lost a lot of fans after AfterMath and had to pick up the right direction and new fans who hadn't had to the money to buy the records........(the new rockers)..........

__________________________

I wasn't around back then, but it is all about the marketing... Some Girls sold hugely, so they did something right in 1978. Let It Bleed is absolutely brilliant, one of the best records by anyone, ever. I dunno, it was late '69, right? Was it released right around Altamont time? When did Abbey Road come out? Maybe that record was saturating the market at the time. One would think those two monster records would compliment each other, though. I'd be curious to hear others' input, especially those who were around and might remember.

I had just turned 15 and usually got Beatle albums for Christmas. (I got the double album Christmas of '68.) Christmas '69 was the first time I requested a Stones album, which was Let It Bleed. Frankly it was a little beyond me. It sounded dangerous and like men making music, as compared to the fairly jocular playing of the Beatles. Live With Me just seemed decadent. It really took Get Yer Ya Yas Out to nail me and make me a fan ever since.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that their music was not loved by as wide an audience as the Beatles. Your grandmother could like Paul singing 'Till There Was You'. Your grandmother didn't know what to make of the Stones. There was no cute one.

Frankly I think it took the Beatles breaking up, and for music to get a little harder, for the Stones to finally shine. (I thought Sticky Fingers was a big seller?) Exile wasn't a big seller either. Goats Head Soup, however, had the monster hit Angie and IORR was more 'fun' and appealing to a wider audience. There's a big difference between critics liking something and the general population. I think Hot Rocks, a huge seller, helped introduce a new audience to the group. Some Girls was just a phenomenon. Miss You hit at just the right disco moment, and Beast of Burden was a big followup. Maybe more women became interested in the group.

Early Stones fans bought Let It Bleed and played the hell out of that record. Make no mistake about this. As the band continued to release great albums and finish successful tours their popularity increased in the early through mid 70's with an ever growing younger audience. Let It Bleed received very strong strong reviews at the time it was released. What was there not to like? The numbers don't tell the full story. Remember the 69 tour was over before the album even hit the record stores.

I still remember buying that record when I was 16. The store and the guy that owned it. First gen pressing and I still have it in excellent condition. Now sure how that happened but it survived LOTS of parties unscathed.....

Quote
NICOS
They lost a lot of fans after AfterMath and had to pick up the right direction and new fans who hadn't had to the money to buy the records........(the new rockers)..........

Interesting, I didn't realize that.

I was 15 (1969) when it was released and I did't had the money to buy it had, to wait till Feb. 1970 got it on my Birthday............it didn't left my record player for months..............

PLAY IT LOUD...........

__________________________

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
NICOS
They lost a lot of fans after AfterMath and had to pick up the right direction and new fans who hadn't had to the money to buy the records........(the new rockers)..........

Interesting, I didn't realize that.

Well I only know this from my 8 older brothers and sisters they weren't interested BTB, TSMR and BB (I assume they were relevant for the rest of the world ;o)) .......................luckily I was there to pick it up

__________________________

Pretty sure it went to No. 1, so it sold well when it was released.
Maybe it didn't continue to sell because a) the Stones went to their own label and maybe the continued promotion wasn't so good; they didn't tour the U.S. in 1970 or 1971 and it was a long time before Sticky Fingers was released so they were out of the news; finally, Hot Rocks came out two years later, so that probably was the album casual Stones fans bought.

They might have picked up more sales, particularly in the US, if they'd released it before or during the '69 tour instead of in December when the tour was over.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

The hit single wasn't on it. They released Through the Past Darkly in time for the tour which ate into sales. It sold well but didn't break through to the more general public, unlike Sticky Fingers, which had a big single, captured a more "party vibe", albeit a very dark one, and was the first post-Beatles. With it, the Stones became a seventies group.

By the way, Let it Bleed is my choice for best album of the rock era.

Quote
TeddyB1018
The hit single wasn't on it. They released Through the Past Darkly in time for the tour which ate into sales. It sold well but didn't break through to the more general public, unlike Sticky Fingers, which had a big single, captured a more "party vibe", albeit a very dark one, and was the first post-Beatles. With it, the Stones became a seventies group.

By the way, Let it Bleed is my choice for best album of the rock era.

That's a good point, they effectively toured behind a Greatest Hits collection rather than a new album when they could easily have issued "Let It Bleed", which was finished, first and saved "Darkly" for the Christmas market.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

it went double platinum at the time; pretty good I'd say.
and about seven or eight times platinum by now probably.

Each and ever Stones LP up to that point and beyond was a big charting LP with good to fantastic sales relatively speaking...i mean ALL of them...
Majesties Request and Buttons, all of them.

I think Bleed did pretty well.
It's a perfect album in every way; every track.
it's just stupendous in every way. to this moment imo.
the material, the performances, the support players...it's just perfect.
I can't think right off the top of my head an album that consistently great, every song every second.
there's a very small handfull in that category to my personal taste. it's a perfect album. if it was the Olympics every judge would give it all the points available.
there is not one second of that album that is near even merely very very good. it defies superlatives. how many ways or words can say 'greatness' or 'perfect' or 'sublime'...
it takes the cake. that it smashes on the cover...what a great great record.
we bought a lot of stuff by a lot of groups that proved to be eternally great albums and a lot of them did not sell very well at the time;
we could care less. the culture could follow US. we knew what was good before the bean counters came into the equation. that's how it felt or seemed anyway...
...at least to a teenager and that's what I was, and would be for some more years.

that was a hit album at the time. and has sold four times as much since then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-11 01:28 by hopkins.

The competiton at the time was very strong, Darkly reached #2 on both UK and US behind Abbey Road (UK) and Green River (US) and in December the competition was even stronger with Led Zeppelin II knocking Abbey Road twice from the top spot, Let It Bleed had good sales (it was #1 in the UK for a week and Top 5 in the US during 2 months) but it lacked a hit single at the time while Whole Lotta Love, Come Together and Something were monster hits.

Yet, the album has sold 7 million copies worldwide and over 3.5 million in the US, not bad at all for an album without a hit single on it.

musta bought at least a dozen copies in some form or other over the years ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
georgelicks
Yet, the album has sold 7 million copies worldwide and over 3.5 million in the US, not bad at all for an album without a hit single on it.

Are these numbers total figures over nearly 50 years, or figures at the time?

I know you're a record company person, so I don't want to belabor your point.

But wasn't it so that after Sgt. Pepper the market moved more toward albums than singles? Besides Sgt. Pepper, the "white" album also sold without a hit single. In 1968, for the first time more albums than singles were sold, plus there was also a burgeoning format of "album-oriented rock". Beggars Banquet also did alright, making top 5 in the UK and US without big hit singles. Like Live With Me, Sympathy and Street Fighting also flopped in the major UK/US markets.

The Stones toured behind Let It Bleed, plus they made an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show during this time. Not to mention the promotion they got through the print media such as music magazines and other reviews. As a more established group, surely they no longer needed to rely on top 40 radio, and compete for airplay among the likes of the Archies.

Quote
Are these numbers total figures over nearly 50 years, or figures at the time?

All time numbers, at time of release (1969-1970) the album sold 1 million in the US, another million plus until 1990 and 1.3 million during the Soundscan era (1991-now).

Quote
But wasn't it so that after Sgt. Pepper the market moved more toward albums than singles? Besides Sgt. Pepper, the "white" album also sold without a hit single. In 1968, for the first time more albums than singles were sold, plus there was also a burgeoning format of "album-oriented rock". Beggars Banquet also did alright, making top 5 in the UK and US without big hit singles. Like Live With Me, Sympathy and Street Fighting also flopped in the major UK/US markets. The Stones toured behind Let It Bleed, plus they made an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show during this time. Not to mention the promotion they got through the print media such as music magazines and other reviews. As a more established group, surely they no longer needed to rely on top 40 radio, and compete for airplay among the likes of the Archies.

The Stones have never had a blockbuster album and they were always promoted as a singles band on their peak days, they have more compilation albums than they have studio albums, which cuts down album sales.

Also, the Stones music on albums is still pretty blues-based and this will always have a limited appeal in that their classic albums (in the US, for example) have sold several millions but have never approached the 10 million league. To many people the music is probably just old-fashioned.

The Stones have never had a blockbuster album but they have more Top 10 albums than any other artist, alive or dead. It's all about balance, you can't get it all.

The record industry didn't really fully kick into gear until early/mid 70's

Always found it strange they didn't play more of it on the '69 US tour

Quote
Deltics

Quote
TeddyB1018
The hit single wasn't on it. They released Through the Past Darkly in time for the tour which ate into sales. It sold well but didn't break through to the more general public, unlike Sticky Fingers, which had a big single, captured a more "party vibe", albeit a very dark one, and was the first post-Beatles. With it, the Stones became a seventies group.

By the way, Let it Bleed is my choice for best album of the rock era.

That's a good point, they effectively toured behind a Greatest Hits collection rather than a new album when they could easily have issued "Let It Bleed", which was finished, first and saved "Darkly" for the Christmas market.

LET IT BLEED's overdubs were finished October 28th. The tour started November 9th.

Quote
stonehearted
The Stones toured behind Let It Bleed, plus they made an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show during this time. Not to mention the promotion they got through the print media such as music magazines and other reviews. As a more established group, surely they no longer needed to rely on top 40 radio, and compete for airplay among the likes of the Archies.

A bit off there.

They toured in front of LET IT BLEED. They played up to 4 songs from the unreleased LP on the 1969 tour.

Partially without a single and released after the tour but also, by 1974, the industry had changed. That's not very long when you think about it: they made music movies ala video singles for singles and songs from GHS, IORR and BAB tracks. By 1971 singles were included on an album - and there weren't as many singles in the span of time.

Seeing that LIB had zero singles, SF had 2 singles and EOMS had 2 singles, GHS had 2 singles and IORR had 2 singles and BAB had 2 singles... those extra tracks they did movies for (Silver Train, Dancing With Mr D, Till The Next Goodbye, Crazy Mama) may have helped.

I really don't know how they were used but they kept doing it so something must've been working!

A quick look at the charts shows that Let It Bleed was competing with Abbey Road, Led Zep II, and a few months later Bridge Over Troubled Waters.
Beggars Banquet was up against the White Album, Cheap Thrills, and Glen Campbell's Wichita Lineman (a great record),
TSMR was up against Magical Mystery Tour and the Monkees Pisces Aquarius (a great record).
Buttons: The Monkees and More of the Monkees.
Sorry, but some records just sell more. Exile was #1 for five weeks, so there you go.

However, Some Girls came out on June 9, and the JFK gig was a week later. I think the gig would have been better received if the album came out earlier. Perhaps it was delayed?

And again, I saw George Harrison in 1974, he played a few tunes from the Dark Horse album, which hadn't been released yet. So we were all going, what is this?

Quote
Send It To me
IMO Let It Bleed is probably the best album anyone ever recorded (just imagine if they included Honky Tonk Women on it along with Country Honk). At the time it was released they were inarguably one of the 2-3 biggest bands in the word, and at their cultural and artistic peak. The songs on it are world famous (Shelter, You Can't Always Get..., Rambler, etc.) and the album cuts are killer (Live With Me, Silver...). And yet, I think it sold roughly as well as It's Only R n' R and less copies than Goats Head Soup. Head scratcher. Why wasn't this (and Sticky Fingers as well) up in Rumors territory??

Rock doesn't sell as much as POP

Rod

Check here: [en.wikipedia.org]

According to this source LIB sold over 7 million copies since then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-11 12:57 by Meise.

Quote
Rockman
musta bought at least a dozen copies in some form or other over the years ....

Right. I just bought the mono UK LP at the jaarbeurs
in Utrecht. I used Jan's Stones on Decca pages to get
the first issue. Great!

Btw: While walking through Utrecht I vividly remembered
the 2003 club show at the Vredenburg. I went there
with my other Stonescrazy friend Harald. (HAPPY BIRTHDAY btw)

Quote
longlongwinter
The record industry didn't really fully kick into gear until early/mid 70's

Thats right.And most sales weren't that good in the 60's
Plus Stones were among the top rock bands but not flavour of the day anymore.

Sticky Fingers was the first Stones album which real good promotion - and good sales.

Let It Bleed is my favourite Stones album with songs of darkness that reached nr1 in the album charts in the Netherlands in 69. Several Bleed tracks were played at Hyde Park and the following American 69 Tour.The album has a great Artistic value independent of sales.