Hi ya all! I feel sorry for destroying HONK thread with my nonsensical statistics stuff, so I decided make a thread of its own for them. So some copy and paste work first with some edition. As a fan of 'what is done is done' I still leave that stuff in that old thread, but, however, I continue the discussion here. For some reason, I prefer to talk at the moment things like these, some cruel statistical facts, and interpreting them, than that of spending my time with bashing them for not providing a new album yet or trying figure out new tasty angles in upgoing Mick vs. Keith drama, or shouting aloud for a millionth time what my personal taste says of, say, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, PRIMITIVE COOL or CROSSEYED HEART.

So those interested in nerdy things like these, feel free to join me here.

I'd be especially grateful if georgelicks, from whom I have learned most of my 'numbers' I use here and who knows about these matters more than I ever do, could have time and provide some updated list of the Stones album selling numbers. Or whatever releated to stuff here.

So, first the post that started it all:

------

Hmm.. the strange world of greatest hits compilations started to interest me, so I went to chartmasters.org to check the sales of their compilations. It is about two years old, but still provides quite an accurate picture of their record sales. Here comes a few observations.

First of all, I noticed one funny fact about HOT ROCKS. It was not relaesed in UK until 1990, but it has sold over one million copies there ever since! It means that HOT ROCKS, an album designed once for North American market only, it's the best selling Stones album in their homeland not only since it was released in 1990 but ever.

Secondly, we all know what a huge seller HOT ROCKS is (12,8 m). But that shouldn't hide the fact how huge sellers many of their major compilations, especially the ones from ABKCO era, have been. From all of their albums released during the 60's, two of the three biggest sellers have been, surprise, surprise, BIG HITS (6,6 m) and THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY (6,0 m), only LET IT BLEED (7,0 m) passing them. For example, albums like BEGGARS BANQUET (4th) and AFTERMATH (5th) have sold 'only' around 4 million copies. And those two greatest hits albums have been out of print for decades, basically HOT ROCKS (and for some time ROLLED GOLD) fulfilling their function (have they ever been released even in CD format?). With HOT ROCKS, those three albums together have sold over 25 million copies! This also is a rather strong indication that the 60's Stones were a singles band - although their studio albums, except LET IT BLEED, were not that big sellers, their hit collections from those days were and are.

And that's not the whole story. If during the 70's HOT ROCKS were targeted at American market, the other parts of world were treated also with rather well-selling releases. For example, mostly UK targeted ROLLED GOLD has sold 1,5 m, and an item called GREATEST HITS (known also as GET STONED), released in 1977, 2,4 m. MORE HOT ROCKS sold 1,7 m while years later (in 1989), SINGLES COLLECTION 2,2 m. Altogether, if we even leave FORTY LICKS and GRRR! out, ABKCO has sold almost 40 million copies with Stones compilations! No wonder Allen Klein must have been laughing all the way to bank.

But what goes for so called Rolling Stones Records/Promotone era, selling those hits has been a bit more difficult. Both MADE IN THE SHADE and REWIND were rather moderate sellers: with their 1,9 and 2,5 m sales they sold significiantly less than their new studio albums at the time (and SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES barely 1,25 m). During the 70's and 80's, the selling point of the Stones clearly was their new studio albums. So it was not until the release of JUMP BACK in 1993 they would have a clear winner in their hands: its sales of 6,9 m since then are impressive, and like I have said in the psot above, it is their best selling 'new' album since TATTOO YOU and before FORTY LICKS was released. I guess that of being for a long time the only major album to cover Promotone era hits explains rather much its sales. A bit like the effect of HOT ROCKS.

Altogether, leaving FORTY LICKS and GRRR! out, The Stones during their Promotone ara have sold about 13 million copies of compilation albums (about 10 million more if we include those two). The total would be a bit more, since the sales of locally targeted (mostly UK) TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE are not available, but most likely it wasn't a million seller. Any case, Klein with his antique catalogue has been outselling them in greatest hits market.

Yep, then we have these two 'hybrid' releases, covering their whole career. FORTY LICKS sold 7,7 m in its a decade long lifespan, which makes it rather high in their over-all ranking, and it most likely will be remain their last 'huge' seller. Compare that to sales of BRIDGES TO BABYLON (4,7 m) and A BIGGER BANG (2,6 m) - clearly out-selling both. By the time GRRR! was released the album market had slowed down efficiently, but still I guess the sales of 2,2 m might have been a bit disappointing for UMG. For example, BLUE & LONESOME has briefly outsold it. What goes for the fate of HONK, the question is how long it will be on sale, and being the only album to cover the post '71 era. Still I would say selling about half of what GRRR! did will be a tough task.

Some summary of the sales of compilation albums:

ABKCO era: 38,5 (added two extra million)
Promotone era: 14 (added one extra million)
Hybrids: 10
Totals: over 60 million

Lastly, here are all of their albums listed by their sales:

1. HOT ROCKS 12,8
2. SOME GIRLS 11,3
3. STICKY FINGERS 9,4
4. TATTOO YOU 8,5
5. EXILE ON MAIN STREET 8,1
6. FORTY LICKS 7,7
7. LET IT BLEED 7,0
8. JUMP BACK 6,9
9. BIG HITS (HIGH TIDE AND GREEN GRASS) 6,7
10. VOODOO LOUNGE 6,4
11. GOATS HEAD SOUP 6,4
12. THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY (BIG HITS VOL. 2) 6,0
13. EMOTIONAL RESCUE 5,7
14. STEEL WHEELS 5,6
15. BRIDGES TO BABYLON 4,7
16. BLACK AND BLUE 4,1
17. BEGGARS BANQUET 4,0
18. FLASHPOINT 4,0
19. STRIPPED 4,0
20. AFTERMATH 3,9
21. DIRTY WORK 3,9
22. IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL 3,7
23. GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! 3,6
24. UNDERCOVER 3,4
25. STILL LIFE 3,2
26. OUT OF OUR HEADS 2,9
27. A BIGGER BANG 2,6
28. REWIND 2,5
29. BLUE & LONESOME 2,5 (?)
30. THE ROLLING STONES/ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS 2,5
31. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES 2,5
32. LOVE YOU LIVE 2,5
33. GREATEST HITS 2,4
34. GRRR! 2,2
35. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS 2,2
36. SINGLES COLLECTION: THE LONDON YEARS 2,2
37. MADE IN THE SHADE 1,9
38. MORE HOT ROCKS 1,7
39. GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! 1,7
40. 12X5 1,7
41. FLOWERS 1,5
42. ROLLED GOLD 1,5
43. METAMORPHOSIS 1,4
44. THE ROLLING STONES, NOW! 1,3
45. DECEMBER'S CHILDREN 1,3
46. NO SECURITY 1,3
47. SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES 1,3
48. THE ROLLING STONES NO 2 1,0
49. LIVE LICKS 0,8
50. SHINE A LIGHT 0,7
51. STONE AGE 0,5
52. ROCK & ROLL CIRCUS 0,5
53. GIMME SHELTER 0,4
54. MILESTONES 0,4
55. RARITIES 1971-2003 0,4
56. SWEET SUMMER SUN 0,3
57. STORY OF THE STONES 0,3
58. HONK 0,2
59. THE VERY BEST OF 0,2
60. BRAVO 0,2
61. ON AIR 0,2
62. TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE 0,1

Surely, there are many albums still missing, and most likely some of them would probably make top 50 or close, such as TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE and ON AIR (EDIT: no, those two did not, but now added to the list!). I am rather sure an early German-based Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND sold rather well at the time.

A side note: best selling Jagger solo album (SHE'S THE BOSS) with its 2,5 m sales would make #28-32 in this list. Keith's best selling album (much hailed TALK IS CHEAP) with its 1 m sales would be #48... No wonder those guys aren't much into solo career...

- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-30 09:58 by Doxa.

Interesting stuff Doxa.thanks
Jeroen

Here is my comment on the insight by ThePaleRider and Testify for the significiance of VOODOO LOUNGE:

----

The whole 'comeback' period, starting with STEEL WHEELS, and ending with STRIPPED, was a great phase for the Stones salewise, almost matching with the other peaks such as from 1969 to 1973 (from THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY to GOATS HEAD SOUP, each major item, except YA-YA'S, selling at least 6 millions copies to this day!) and from 1978 to 1981 (including the monster hit albums SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU). Within that time frame from 1989 to 1995 they released two of their best selling live albums ever (both FLASHPOINT and STRIPPED selling four million copies, which means that both, for example, outsold their mid-80's new studio albums UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK and high-profile compilation REWIND) and two very successful new studio albums. Over-all they sold about 20 million copies with those four albums (and then, the big seller JUMP BACK was also released within that time frame). Of course that period, early 90's, was the all-time high in selling albums generally (the golden age of CD-era), but still a great achievement.

If we take into account those incredibly successful tours (Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle and Voodoo Lounge tours) it was indeed a great come-back for veteran rockers back to form!

- Doxa

Arises the question : Is there a connection between the quality of music and the record sales or can it be that buying Vinyl or CD's became more fashionable during certain eras, also given the fact that the population increases/ more people get acces to products, not the least through the media-stream.

Then there was some discussion about their biggest 'normal' album seller ever, SOME GIRLS. First thanks to Testify for inspiring me to write this:

---

SOME GIRLS is their best selling studio album because Americans decided during the summer of 1978 that it was the best thing one can get. That explains its huge sales (6.8 m units sold only in the US market). It was a great seller all over the world, but, for example, in Europe it has sold about the same as VOODOO LOUNGE did, both EXILE and STICKY FINGERS selling more. In UK, BLUE & LONESOME has sold almost as many copies as SOME GIRLS!

Anyway, my biggest concern has always been relatively small sales of BEGGARS BANQUET. It is one of their most hailed albums ever but that doesn't quite translate in sales.

------


Here is a polished/edited version of my reply to Testify for misinterpreting my intentions above (probably my own fault with the tone and a choice of words):

-----

I just described above some factual statistics based on geography. The huge numbers of SOME GIRLS are based on the fact that it was an exceptional success in US market. In the rest of the world, not so much (even though still a great success, but nothing extraordinary to stand out). Over 61% of its over-all sales derive from the US - that percentage number is exceptional. Typically, from the mid-60's to the late 80's, quite exactly half of the sales of any new studio album were America-based, varying just by a percent or two (for some reason, that started to drop quite dramatically from the 90's on, A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME having any longer something like 20-25%). The closest to SOME GIRLS are BEGGARS BANQUET (55%) and TATTOO YOU (54%).

For example, in the case of another huge seller, EXILE, the percentage is 47%. With STICKY FINGERS that is 50%. Of later huge selling albums, VOODOO LOUNGE has only 37%. In fact, outside the US market all of those three albums have sold about the same: STICKY FINGERS 4,65 m. SOME GIRLS 4,4 m, EXILE 4,25 m, VOODOO LOUNGE 4,0 m.

This is just statistics with no any moral or judgmental concerns. The most I can say is that SOME GIRLS hitted big time in America 1978, like no any other album by theirs before or since and by a big margin (except HOT ROCKS). Great! But this was not the case globally.

Some other similar observations:

If we take their first album being both UK and US version (ENGLANDS NEWEST HITMAKERS), we could say that that album sold nicely because quite many young Brittons decided to buy it. 36% of its 2.5 m sales derive solely from UK. No any other album is even close by that percentage number of Brittons buying them. With its 840 000 sales it has sold there, for example, twice as much as 14 years later released SOME GIRLS.

Then we could say that A BIGGER BANG was quite an okay international success because, unlike Americans, quite many Europeans still thought that a new Rolling Stones album is still worth of a purchase. Almost half of its 2.6 m sales are from there. No any album since their first has been so Europe-driven by sales. The album has sold almost twice as many copies in Europe than in US. By contrast, SOME GIRLS has sold in US almost three times more copies than in Europe. In Europe SOME GIRLS only sold about twice as many copies as A BIGGER BANG. In US it sold over ten times more.


- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-25 15:57 by Doxa.

A word wonder hopkins get me really going:

----

Good stuff, hopkins, like always! I agree with you that there is more than statistics, especially in trying to figure out the success in such a huge and diverse market such as USA. But, of course, a similar thing can be said of an entity called 'Europe', which aren't that homogenous either (not that the countries differ culturally from each other, but even within a certain more homogenous area, there are differences in reception of the Stones, such as, for some reason, Spain has been always more a 'Stones country' than Italy, and Sweden more than Finland). My point was just to look a bit behind the over-all sale numbers. Some interesting - me thinks - observations can be made by comparing the relative success between different markets.

I think over-all in order to get a huge international hit album with massive sales - that requires to hit big time America. The biggest differences between individual sales of albums can be seen there. The huge sellers are really huge in compared to the rest. Such is a power and significance of American market. Also that of the over-sales of albums sinking down, as we have wittnessed lately, that's also a trend started in US market. I speak here about the Stones, but I think that applies to record business in general.

Of that, one could make a several intersting observations. Traditionally, from the 60's to late 80's/early 90's, the success of the Stones internationally in terms of selling albums was a rather constant:

USA: 50%
Europe: 35%
The rest: 15%

So that's the two huge markets, USA and Europe, and in that order, from where the Stones made their living. The band, like rock&roll, was really a 'Western' thing. That goes along with seeing in where the Stones always liked to promote their albums by touring.

However, gradually from the early 90's on, the situation has changed. My rough estimation at the moment (based mostly on the sales of BRIDGES TO BABYLON, A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME) is:

Europe: 50%
USA: 25%
The rest: 25%

That's the effect of 'globalisation', which also can be reflected in their touring. The Stones truely are a more international phenomenon nowadays than in the past. But interestingly, the old continent of Europe has taken the place of US as their most important market. In realistic terms that means that the downhill in record sales has not affected so much in Europe than in USA. It surely has, but not so much. At least yet.

Lastly, a funny anecdote about BLUE & LONESOME. Like many have pointed out, it is rather close to from where they once started: that of doing blues covers. But there are some other similarities between it and their first album.

Firstly, both THE ROLLING STONES/ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS and BLUE & LONESOME have sold about the same amount of copies each, roughly 2.5 million (I hope georgelicks could give us a more strict number of the latter, mine is estimation). Still both can be seen as big number one hit albums by the criteria of their day. But that tells more about the state of album business in 1964 or 2016 and how bad it is doing if with numbers like that we can talk about big sellers. It's like going back to the 'singles era', album being a secondary product, nowadays singles being replaced by streaming individual songs. True hits are once again basically individual songs, not collections of them.

Secondly, and I think more interestingly, there is a striking similarity between those two albums: each sold about the same amount of copies both in UK and US markets. With their first album the number in both sides of Atlantic is something like 800 000-840 000 sold copies, with BLUE & LONESOME the number is about 350 000-400 000. Just reflect those numbers and how well the British are relatively speaking doing! That's like 'going back home' to the place from they first started. It looks like 'the sweet old country that I come from' has re-established their love for their prodigal sons. Even if we leave relativity and context out, and talk instead in realistic terms, BLUE & LONESOME has been an amazing success in their homeland. There aren't many studio albums in their history ever that has sold more copies than BLUE & LONESOME has (six are in the class of their own: their first two, AFTERMATH, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, selling from 600 000 to 875 000). It sold more than twice as much as their two previous ones (and many albums from the 60's, 70's and 80's) and approximately about same amount as such classical albums as BEGGARS BANQUET, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU. Taken the nature of today's (dying) record industry, that's an incredible achievement. Hats off to 'poor old England'!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, my biggest concern has always been relatively small sales of BEGGARS BANQUET. It is one of their most hailed albums ever but that doesn't quite translate in sales.


- Doxa

1: Beggars was released in 1968, not that many people bought vinyl then. PR was much poorer at the time.

2: It proves that there's not always a direct relationship between good music (perception that is) and record sales. John Coltrane sold about 200.000 records, ABBA sold millions. And there's a lot inbetween.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-25 16:45 by TheflyingDutchman.

I hadn't realised there was such a gap between the sales figures of Beatles and Stones albums.
The Beatles were way out in front.

Fascinating stuff, Doxa.
Particularly the data regarding the sales of their first and latest releases-
THE ROLLING STONES/ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS and BLUE & LONESOME.

Be interesting to see if the next album continues the 50/50 trend.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Arises the question : Is there a connection between the quality of music and the record sales or can it be that buying Vinyl or CD's became more fashionable during certain eras, also given the fact that the population increases/ more people get acces to products, not the least through the media-stream.

A hard question. The issue of 'quality' sounds almost a transcendental one. What really makes some music more popular than other. Their quality? The contingency of public taste (we easily go elitists here)? Do albums like STICKY FINGERS and EXILE sell so well, in compared to their other catalog albums, because the music in them is superior to their other albums? Or is that there is a 'consensus' that those are the Stones albums best ever, and the hype surrounding them make their well-promoted re-editions sell so well? Intuition says that there needs to be at least some kind of connection between the sales and quality. Their most selling albums are generally the ones hailed most, as are their best selling and charting singles the ones that are their most beloved - 'best' - songs.

However, your second hypothesis is a valid one too. When we are talking about a career that covers over 55 years one really can't compare the sales of individual albums from different era next to each other. There has been so many changes in market and in the customs of potential buying audience. For example, I think the 'come back era' from STEEL WHEELS to STRIPPED surely gained from the uprising of CD market, and as far as I know that was the high peak of selling albums ever. The threshold of buying an album hit its lowest ever. Surely that of the Stones touring big time then had its effect on sales - the albums were promoted better than, say, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK were. But, honestly, would we really think that STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO LOUNGE are 'better' albums than BEGGARS BANQUET, because they have sold better? Different era, different circumstances. Lots of factors to consider.

Let's go philosophical. The problem is that when discussing 'quality' we easily lead ourselves into extreme positions. It is either a question of idiosyncratic taste for which 'popularity' doesn't mean anything. Quality is totally subjective (and, thereby, a relativistic notion). If we think that 'opinions are like @#$%&, each having one, as as good as any', there is no way of getting any objectivity from that position. The only logical solution is that forget anything about personal taste and just look at the popularity of music - the more people enjoy it (buying it, listening to it, dancing to it etc.), the better it is. End of story. That's about the only 'objective' criterion one could get.

But then again, I guess there are no many Rolling Stones fans in the world who doesn't think "Gimme Shelter" is a better song in quality than "Back to Zero" (Chuck Leavell doesn't count). I think many of us would like to say that it is not just the case of liking the one over other, but that of the other simply, objectively, being a better song. And I think it is. It is a hard task to explain that 'objective' value, which goes beneath subjective taste, but I think it can be done. Or if not could be done, it still is there.

But if we leave the quality factor out, I think that of explaining the popularity of music cannot simply done by watching raw data of sales. I'll recommend anyone to read The Rolling Stones Popularity Analysis (CSPS) by Chartmasters. One can think whatever about their methodology (I have some complaints about certain traits), but I am impressed by their results. They go 'right' with the intuitions many of us have. I will give the link here to them:

[chartmasters.org]

Just look at the graphicical view! It really picks up the peaks we know them to have, and also puts their latter albums to their 'right' places, despite some of selling so well. I would say that it not only rather accuratively explains their popularity, but that even goes hand in hand with their quality!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-25 17:34 by Doxa.

Doxa....

The 'problem' if you can call it that, with Beggar's is the lack of a 'hit single'.

The only single off the album, SFM was banned or heavily thwarted from airplay giving the album a low profile in the North American market.

I believe that's the reason for the relatively low sales. Obviously on the back of #1 Miss You, (and then Beast & Shattered as lower charting follow-ups) you have a one-two-three punch.

The right album at the right time. While excellent it certainly isn't in their top 4 (or even top 5 from my perspective) but sometimes timing is everything.

From what I remember the release of BB was very low key. They did the David Frost TV show and a few interviews. No single in the UK. No live concerts of course.
Not sure if ABKCO or Decca put themselves out?
There was the 'custard pie party' in a London hotel but that probably made the group look pretty ridiculous to the potential record buying public.
Then it was down to RR Circus work and finally Mick and Keith's South American holiday.
Seems as though, even Mick was not concerned about doing PR.
Arrogance? Or couldn't care less? Or Management and record label issues? Hard to tell.

....I don't find it " boring ".....

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Arises the question : Is there a connection between the quality of music and the record sales or can it be that buying Vinyl or CD's became more fashionable during certain eras, also given the fact that the population increases/ more people get acces to products, not the least through the media-stream.

But if we leave the quality factor out, I think that of explaining the popularity of music cannot simply done by watching raw data of sales. I'll recommend anyone to read The Rolling Stones Popularity Analysis (CSPS) by Chartmasters. One can think whatever about their methodology (I have some complaints about certain traits), but I am impressed by their results. They go 'right' with the intuitions many of us have. I will give the link here to them:

[chartmasters.org]

Just look at the graphicical view! It really picks up the peaks we know them to have, and also puts their latter albums to their 'right' places, despite some of selling so well. I would say that it not only rather accuratively explains their popularity, but that even goes hand in hand with their quality!

- Doxa

Thanks for the link, I saw it before. The first column compared to the 3th, 4th and 5th column attracts my attention in particular. I could tell us a bit more about the quality of the individual songs. A pity they didn't publish that.

Quality, the perceptive factor or transcendental if you like and Quantity, the statistical parameter that proves the Stones' popularity by numbers, but up and down in this table indeed .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 00:51 by TheflyingDutchman.

I'd take the self-deprecating 'boring' stuff out of the title of your thread,
tho likely you left it in a jovial fashion...i often mis-read cuz sensitivo.

peeps can click other threads; or not engage in others critical thinking offerings.
just a quik impression; your contributions are always thoughtful and focused;
i personally don't read all of everything or every comment; or 'click' w interest on every thread...
...i don't have time but find it often fascinating information
from a Lot of truly informed fan-peeps here
that have also maybe written books, or made other significant and
important contributions for this fan here,
on YouTube and/or other social media, VERY generously
and very informed; and
sharing with good heart. Sometimes i recognize one the iorr truly deep
fans launching these precious tracks; and it's both very sweet,
and very important, to my listening and further depth with the music...
it's not near as boring as wig threads or other 'fascinating' stuff.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 01:40 by hopkins.

interesting stats, some unexpected results from some of them album sales.

Tom Petty (RIP)
‘She was, an American girl...’

among many whom ‘Some Girls’ hit from release thru 1982
oh we fell in love with Mick and Keef and their glamerous Jerry and Patti
‘Beast of Burden’ ‘Miss You’ ‘Just My Imagination’ ‘Some Girls’ Keith’s ‘Before They Make Me Run’.
SOME GIRLS is GOLD.
yes you got us good Glimmers

(in response to the USA percentage sales of the album ‘Some Girls’)

Followed up side 2 Tattoo You? Forget about it.... didn’t stand a chance LOL
I didn’t forget ‘Emotional Rescue’
CRASH! Is there nothing I can say, nothing I can do.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 03:45 by 35love.

Keep in mind a large portion of the HOT ROCKS sales weren't counted as one unit but two, until 1991 as far as I know. So the actual units of it are probably just over half of what it actually sold.

Just a guess.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Keep in mind a large portion of the HOT ROCKS sales weren't counted as one unit but two, until 1991 as far as I know. So the actual units of it are probably just over half of what it actually sold.

Just a guess.

Sales for many of their pre-1991 albums are unknown, during the Soundscan era Hot Rocks has sold over 3.7 million copies and the album was already 6x Platinum by 1993.
The last certification update was on 2002 for sales of 6 million copies (12x Platinum as double album), since then the album has sold 1.5 million copies at least so an updated certification in 2019 must be close to 15/16x Platinum for sales of 7.5/8 million copies in the US since December 1971.

And just for the record, last week Hot Rocks reached the week 300 on The Billboard 200 chart.

"The Stones have charted over TEN!! compilations on the list, with a..."

They are close to Elvis territory; or Little Richard; other absolutely
classic rock and roll artists repackaged a million times;
i'm not taking issue with it personally; it's cool with me to have more Stones songs in the machinery...
...but it's sort of eye-opening ;
i guess i never tried to actually count as they accrued variously in the world.

Quote
jlowe
From what I remember the release of BB was very low key. They did the David Frost TV show and a few interviews. No single in the UK. No live concerts of course.
Not sure if ABKCO or Decca put themselves out?
There was the 'custard pie party' in a London hotel but that probably made the group look pretty ridiculous to the potential record buying public.
Then it was down to RR Circus work and finally Mick and Keith's South American holiday.
Seems as though, even Mick was not concerned about doing PR.
Arrogance? Or couldn't care less? Or Management and record label issues? Hard to tell.

Just remembered that would also be an album they didn't tour behind, so in addition to no hit singles an invisible band. Understandable it didn't sell.

This is not the Beatles.

Neat thread. Glad to see Bridges to Babylon made the top 15.
Underrated for one of their later efforts with new material.

Mike


[www.flickr.com]

Crucify me if you want ...but it always amazes me how well Exile has sold down the years .

Why ?

Because to the average "AOR" listener it sounds like their kids' band practising in the garage.

Exile is at the same time sublime...and a right bloody racket !

Quote
Spud
Crucify me if you want ...but it always amazes me how well Exile has sold down the years .

Why ?

Because to the average "AOR" listener it sounds like their kids' band practising in the garage.

Exile is at the same time sublime...and a right bloody racket !

When the record came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world.
- Keith Richards, 2003

Critics always like to give the Stones bad reviews. One day they're going to be right. They just haven't been right so far, because we always manage - I don't mean to be conceited, but we always manage - to come up with the goods, and the public seem to like it and buy it. Then three years later the reviewers turn around and say, Yeah, that was a great album, after saying at the time, It was a load of old shit. Most of them did that with Exile, and came back and said it was probably one of the greatest albums or packages that the Stones had ever put out. So what? (laughs). I don't care what they say anymore.
- Bill Wyman, 1982


Here's one to piss off the EXILE SHOULDN'T BE EDITED EVER! freaks:

I'd like to have a single album compilation of my favorite Exile on Main Street tracks, though I still feel that the amount of material we had at that point warranted a double album, even if they are always too long.
- Keith Richards, 1973


[timeisonourside.com]

Actually I think Wyman is wrong.
Most reviewers since 1976 have been very kind to the Stones latest albums.
'Return to form'
'Best album since Some Girls' etc.

When even die hard fans would say otherwise.

Quote
Spud
Crucify me if you want ...but it always amazes me how well Exile has sold down the years .

Why ?

Because to the average "AOR" listener it sounds like their kids' band practising in the garage.

Exile is at the same time sublime...and a right bloody racket !

I think EXILE having the best 'brand' of their catalogue albums, and they have managed to make sure that any respected rock fan should, next to HOT ROCKS or something like that, own it. If the reviews were rather mild initially, the band should thank the press ever since. For example, it always makes the top spots in the lists of best albums ever by ROLLING STONE magazine (once recall it being #2 only next to SGT. PEPPER). Its deluxe-edition was a huge million success as well salewise (for example, re-entering #1 in UK list), and seemingly UMG and the band made a great job in promoting it.

However, I share your feelings... EXILE is not an 'easy-listening' album. So I wonder how many of its buyers actually have nerves to listen the album so much in order to 'get it'.... Honestly, of the people I know who love rock but aren't any big Stones fans particularly, EXILE seem to confuse them... by contrast, the greatness of STICKY FINGERS and LET IT BLEED seems to be recognized rather easily... Those albums seem to speak more in terms of 'traditional rock'.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 19:02 by Doxa.

Doxa - thanks for your time on this - a quick glance of the math - stones sold 200
million which is a lot - my favorite Beggars Banquet only 4M - that amazed me.

I think Zep's 300 million sales is unreal to me - 200 million by the stones is quite an achievement.

Release Made In The Shade on CD

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a figure of more than 10 million vinyls sold of Some Girls. Would that mean that since the introduction of CDs in the mid 80s, only a mere 1 million CDs have been sold of Some Girls?