Tell Me :
Talk
It has been at one point. That and Sucking in the 70s were briefly released 10 years ago or so.
Yes indeed - the point of being too overtly 'commercial' was not 'hip' any longer or especially at that time. I think that of getting rid of Oldham, and of his cheap PR tricks, for example, was also that of taking the fate of themselves to their own shoulders, and being more mature, serious and 'artistic-minded'. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES was basically the first fruition of that, its moral being, if anything else, that of the Stones needing a real producer to accomplish something valuable. The Stones, once again, were following the example of The Beatles there. Probably they thought that the PR campaign and touring is already done, they have accomplished their status in the business - now they can concentrate their energy on perfecting their art (which they, bloody hell, did!). And those pieces of art, together with their well-established 'brand', will do the talking, no extra PR bullshit is needed.
But I guess what worked for the Beatles, being a pure studio band and doing about nothing else than releasing records, especially mind-blowing albums, didn't quite work for the Stones. At some point, they realized that no matter what their status were, they weren't as rich as they thought to be (mostly thanks to Klein). I guess that took place around the winter of 1968/69 when they realized that they need to start touring again. Of course, there might have a pure 'artistic' reason for that (the boys liked to play live), but I wouldn't underestimate the motivation in terms of pure $$$ - when George Harrison was asked about the Stones starting touring again (and why the Beatles not), he said something to effect that they probably are going to do it because they are broke. George had a point there, but I would say it was more like the Stones altogether realizing that in order to continue their career and to stay under a spotlight big time, they needed to do that. They needed to start marketing their records (what touring mostly was at the time). The Beatles not.
There is an interesting little scene in STONES IN THE PARK in which Mick says - just prior playing his first true live gig for over two years - that "I always felt like the Beatles... you know, when they were big... their thing was doing records, ours was like doing concerts"...
The always competative Mick is there intentionally redescribing the past and setting the stage for a new chapter in Stones vs. Beatles rivalry...
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-27 18:15 by Doxa.
Released on CD by Sony and Virgin.
Nice, thanks georgelicks!
actually skippy, Honky Tonk Women and Angie were bigger singles than Miss You.
And JJF doesn't make their top 5 singles.
I'm always sort of glad to see HR up there, as generations come and go.
For me it's great joy that people are listening to the same songs and performances
that stunned everyone right from the start on the AM radio.
that's world shaking stuff; i can't argue with any of it.
i dunno if it signals that generally people ARE 'getting' the good stuff,
or not, in contemporary society 2019.
It's 50 years since the ya yas. tour (and my High School graduation,
they railroaded me out, ida bin happy to still be there,
cuz, girls.
...
i'm not sure if there is a trackable demographic that's digging into it, age-wise, during various decades till now, tho. and am curious about that.
the 'kids'?
thirties, forties...old fahts? hard to tell...
anyone got a stab at that?
I kinda answered to your open question in my post above - it will be a steady seller as long as it will remain a major (and most easily reachable) release to cover post-71 era. The streaming of its 'big hits' will take care of that (the hardcore fans and completists have done their bit by now - and as we have seen here, it wasn't any strongly hailed release here - from now on it belongs to the casual fans to stream...). But, however, that of it ever reaching the numbers of the past similar collections, is doubtful.
Here is the sale numbers in millions from 2016 for the albums you mentioned:
REWIND: 2,5
SUCKING IN THE 70'S: 1,3
MADE IN THE SHADE: 1,9
.
.
.
JUMP BACK 6,9
I don't have numbers for TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE, and about the only reference I could find for its reception, was that of (1) it wasn't released in their best selling market (US), (2) but where it did - UK mostly - it didn't chart, and (3) it was a commercial flop and withthrown & forgotten rather quickly. So, probably we are not here talking about a million seller, but more like a collector's item.
(I'm not sure if THE SIMIAN DISASTER refers to a gorilla or boots album...)
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 15:51 by Doxa.
On Air has sold close to 180k worldwide, around 55k in the US and 30k in the UK.
Time Waits For No One only charted in Australia for a week at #98 in 1979, we don't know much more about it, I don't think it reached 100k sold worldwide.
BRIDGES sold better than the big 4, if I remember correctly.
I'll add those to my list (and estimate TWFNO around 100k)... I guess a rather disappointing numbers for ON AIR after the success of BLUE & LONESOME. Many considered it as a kind of follower for the latter.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 16:31 by Doxa.
The right time to release a BBC album was around 1994-2000, about the same time that the Beatles released their set or the Anthology series.
A BBC album in 2017 with all the material available in youtube and with album sales at 20-25% in comparison to 1995, well the results were obvious.
Great information!
But A Bigger Bang is missing in the sales rank.
Thanks! I need to add A BIGGER BANG to my original list. It will take some work, but it will make #26 with its 2.6 m sales. Thanks again for your observation!
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Statistics, sales and other boring stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 27, 2019 14:57
Good points here about BEGGARS BANQUET! That of not having a single hit in it to boost sales surely have an effect to at least in the US market, since having big radio hits in album was a norm there. "Street Fighting Man" sinked. And was "Sympathy For The Devil" as an album track too long for a constant air play? But then again, they were able to sell LET IT BLEED despite not having hits in it either. In UK it was still normal that singles were not (yet) included.
But it is interesting to notice that despite the album is generally (rightly) hailed as a masterpiece after the 'failure' of THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES, and one of the key albums hitting the zeitgeit of 1968, at the time there wasn't such a big difference between the chart performances and the sales of those two albums. Yeah, today BEGGARS has sold clearly more copies, but I think most of that is to do with having better catalogue sales. In its own context, BEGGARS BANQUET sold nicely, even strongly, like a succesful Stones album at the time did, and, except for some Beatles albums, the mammouth sales of albums was just about to happen, but not quite yet. Within a few years it was all different, which was also reflected in the sales of Stones albums. The 'albums era' was just about to begin.
Also that of not advertising the album much, and not doing much anything else either, might have a role too. But probably that also still was typical to the times, the significance of albums and of their sales was not quite yet seen. Like said above, they weren't the Beatles who seemingly had that luxury of no matter what they did or released was automatically an incredible success. The Stones needed to so something 'extra' than being a pure studio band releasing stuff, to make a difference.
Yeah, they had released a hit single "Jumpin' Jack Flash" a half year earlier, but still I guess the band was still slightly out of picture. I recall reading in some MELODY MAKER or something about the 'comeback' of the Stones. Could it be that the record-buying masses weren't quite sure yet if the band was still yet in such a strong form after the not-so-convincing albums like BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES? And there were lots of things happening in the hectic music scene at the time, no matter how (in)famous and popular the Stones were. Add there the issue they had with Decca about the sleeve. According to some biography, by the time - months later - the album finally was released the band had lost interested in it.
Anyway, I have the picture that probably for about the only time in their long career, the Stones - Mick and Keith - were then in a position that they knew exactly what they musically wanted, they knew where they were going, their believed on their new stuff, and they were convinced that they have a winner in their hands, no matter how much it would sell. From there stems the 'arrogance'.
This is to say that then purely an artistic merit seemed to be more important than commercial success. After Dylan and SGT. PEPPER and people like Jimi Hendrix, it was not 'just' pop music any longer. Rock music had more point, seriousness and significance, that is, 'pure' artistic merit. The Stones, the world's second biggest rock band, were so convinced and proud of their latest art that they had the right to be arrogant. Probably they just couldn't give a shit, or it looked like that by the criterion of latter years, or by the criterion of just a few years earlier. There was no any longer 'England's Newest Hit Makers' or even 'Flowers' kind of 'cheap' tricks used for selling albums. Probably not any longer including a hit single ("Flash") to US version of BEGGARS BANQUET was a sign of that (a trend started with SATANIC MAJESTIES, though). Not there were yet those mammouth campaigns (and tours) of advertising their Rolling Stones Records era albums. Besides, if the big album-buying masses weren't totally impressed, all the cool people - counter culture and everything - were listening to them. They were doing stuff with people Jean Luc Godard. I mean, Dylan's albums didn't sell Beatles-like either, but 'everybody', the cool people, listened to them. That even pissed off John Lennon... Despite "Street Fighting Man" failed in the US charts, they seemingly didn't give a shit, and they were right. The song turned out to be a classic and even today one of the anthems of the era.
1968 was a cool year. Not not only because I happened to born then...
By the time LET IT BLEED was released, lots of things had happened around the band, and they have had done a lot. Hyde Park, American tour, incredibly successful "Honky Tonk Women", and, as bad it might sound, even the tragedies of Brian and Altamont were keeping them in headlines. Bloody hell, they were 'the greatest rock & roll band in the world' - a claim that absolutely sounded arrogant in the world in which The Beatles still existed. And people were more used to buy more albums. Let it Bleed!
Altogether, my conclusion is that the relatively weak sales of BEGGARS BANQUET are to be explained by it being an album released in a transitional era, not yet gaining from the standards and procedures of a pure 'albums era'. And by that certain and exceptional 'art-driven' climate of the era. I am quite certain that at the time the band and Decca were satisfied with its sales.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-27 15:55 by Doxa.
But it is interesting to notice that despite the album is generally (rightly) hailed as a masterpiece after the 'failure' of THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES, and one of the key albums hitting the zeitgeit of 1968, at the time there wasn't such a big difference between the chart performances and the sales of those two albums. Yeah, today BEGGARS has sold clearly more copies, but I think most of that is to do with having better catalogue sales. In its own context, BEGGARS BANQUET sold nicely, even strongly, like a succesful Stones album at the time did, and, except for some Beatles albums, the mammouth sales of albums was just about to happen, but not quite yet. Within a few years it was all different, which was also reflected in the sales of Stones albums. The 'albums era' was just about to begin.
Also that of not advertising the album much, and not doing much anything else either, might have a role too. But probably that also still was typical to the times, the significance of albums and of their sales was not quite yet seen. Like said above, they weren't the Beatles who seemingly had that luxury of no matter what they did or released was automatically an incredible success. The Stones needed to so something 'extra' than being a pure studio band releasing stuff, to make a difference.
Yeah, they had released a hit single "Jumpin' Jack Flash" a half year earlier, but still I guess the band was still slightly out of picture. I recall reading in some MELODY MAKER or something about the 'comeback' of the Stones. Could it be that the record-buying masses weren't quite sure yet if the band was still yet in such a strong form after the not-so-convincing albums like BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES? And there were lots of things happening in the hectic music scene at the time, no matter how (in)famous and popular the Stones were. Add there the issue they had with Decca about the sleeve. According to some biography, by the time - months later - the album finally was released the band had lost interested in it.
Anyway, I have the picture that probably for about the only time in their long career, the Stones - Mick and Keith - were then in a position that they knew exactly what they musically wanted, they knew where they were going, their believed on their new stuff, and they were convinced that they have a winner in their hands, no matter how much it would sell. From there stems the 'arrogance'.
This is to say that then purely an artistic merit seemed to be more important than commercial success. After Dylan and SGT. PEPPER and people like Jimi Hendrix, it was not 'just' pop music any longer. Rock music had more point, seriousness and significance, that is, 'pure' artistic merit. The Stones, the world's second biggest rock band, were so convinced and proud of their latest art that they had the right to be arrogant. Probably they just couldn't give a shit, or it looked like that by the criterion of latter years, or by the criterion of just a few years earlier. There was no any longer 'England's Newest Hit Makers' or even 'Flowers' kind of 'cheap' tricks used for selling albums. Probably not any longer including a hit single ("Flash") to US version of BEGGARS BANQUET was a sign of that (a trend started with SATANIC MAJESTIES, though). Not there were yet those mammouth campaigns (and tours) of advertising their Rolling Stones Records era albums. Besides, if the big album-buying masses weren't totally impressed, all the cool people - counter culture and everything - were listening to them. They were doing stuff with people Jean Luc Godard. I mean, Dylan's albums didn't sell Beatles-like either, but 'everybody', the cool people, listened to them. That even pissed off John Lennon... Despite "Street Fighting Man" failed in the US charts, they seemingly didn't give a shit, and they were right. The song turned out to be a classic and even today one of the anthems of the era.
1968 was a cool year. Not not only because I happened to born then...
By the time LET IT BLEED was released, lots of things had happened around the band, and they have had done a lot. Hyde Park, American tour, incredibly successful "Honky Tonk Women", and, as bad it might sound, even the tragedies of Brian and Altamont were keeping them in headlines. Bloody hell, they were 'the greatest rock & roll band in the world' - a claim that absolutely sounded arrogant in the world in which The Beatles still existed. And people were more used to buy more albums. Let it Bleed!
Altogether, my conclusion is that the relatively weak sales of BEGGARS BANQUET are to be explained by it being an album released in a transitional era, not yet gaining from the standards and procedures of a pure 'albums era'. And by that certain and exceptional 'art-driven' climate of the era. I am quite certain that at the time the band and Decca were satisfied with its sales.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-27 15:55 by Doxa.
Re: Statistics, sales and other boring stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2019 15:21
Quote
Elmo Lewis
Release Made In The Shade on CD
It has been at one point. That and Sucking in the 70s were briefly released 10 years ago or so.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: March 27, 2019 16:35
Early 1968 Dylan released John Wesley Harding and from what I can recall there was very little promotion and certainly no concerts and at least in the UK no single from the album.
I think the major artists of the time may have thought active PR to sell their product was unhip.
Dylan has never really played the Marketing game, however his period with David Geffen's label 1974 /75 was short lived, partly because he thought that his record company hadn't promoted his new album (Planet Waves) very well!
I think the major artists of the time may have thought active PR to sell their product was unhip.
Dylan has never really played the Marketing game, however his period with David Geffen's label 1974 /75 was short lived, partly because he thought that his record company hadn't promoted his new album (Planet Waves) very well!
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 27, 2019 17:37
Quote
jlowe
Early 1968 Dylan released John Wesley Harding and from what I can recall there was very little promotion and certainly no concerts and at least in the UK no single from the album.
I think the major artists of the time may have thought active PR to sell their product was unhip.
Dylan has never really played the Marketing game, however his period with David Geffen's label 1974 /75 was short lived, partly because he thought that his record company hadn't promoted his new album (Planet Waves) very well!
Yes indeed - the point of being too overtly 'commercial' was not 'hip' any longer or especially at that time. I think that of getting rid of Oldham, and of his cheap PR tricks, for example, was also that of taking the fate of themselves to their own shoulders, and being more mature, serious and 'artistic-minded'. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES was basically the first fruition of that, its moral being, if anything else, that of the Stones needing a real producer to accomplish something valuable. The Stones, once again, were following the example of The Beatles there. Probably they thought that the PR campaign and touring is already done, they have accomplished their status in the business - now they can concentrate their energy on perfecting their art (which they, bloody hell, did!). And those pieces of art, together with their well-established 'brand', will do the talking, no extra PR bullshit is needed.
But I guess what worked for the Beatles, being a pure studio band and doing about nothing else than releasing records, especially mind-blowing albums, didn't quite work for the Stones. At some point, they realized that no matter what their status were, they weren't as rich as they thought to be (mostly thanks to Klein). I guess that took place around the winter of 1968/69 when they realized that they need to start touring again. Of course, there might have a pure 'artistic' reason for that (the boys liked to play live), but I wouldn't underestimate the motivation in terms of pure $$$ - when George Harrison was asked about the Stones starting touring again (and why the Beatles not), he said something to effect that they probably are going to do it because they are broke. George had a point there, but I would say it was more like the Stones altogether realizing that in order to continue their career and to stay under a spotlight big time, they needed to do that. They needed to start marketing their records (what touring mostly was at the time). The Beatles not.
There is an interesting little scene in STONES IN THE PARK in which Mick says - just prior playing his first true live gig for over two years - that "I always felt like the Beatles... you know, when they were big... their thing was doing records, ours was like doing concerts"...
The always competative Mick is there intentionally redescribing the past and setting the stage for a new chapter in Stones vs. Beatles rivalry...- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-27 18:15 by Doxa.
Re: Statistics, sales and other boring stuff
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 28, 2019 04:14
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Elmo Lewis
Release Made In The Shade on CD
It has been at one point. That and Sucking in the 70s were briefly released 10 years ago or so.
Released on CD by Sony and Virgin.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: April 26, 2019 01:35
Some info about the Record Store day:
[www.billboard.com]
"The top-selling Record Store Day-exclusive single at indie stores was The Rolling Stones’ “She’s a Rainbow,” recorded live in Paris on Oct. 25, 2017, selling nearly 4,000 copies on 10” yellow-colored vinyl."
Also, BIG HITS charts at #176 on the latest BILLBOARD 200.
[www.billboard.com]
Billboard ranks the UK version as a NEW ENTRY, the US version reached #3 on the BB200 in 1966 and spent 99 weeks on the chart.
Also "She's a Rainbow (live)" is a new rock hit for the band: it charts at #41 on BILLBOARD's TOP ROCK SONGS:
[www.billboard.com]
[www.billboard.com]
"The top-selling Record Store Day-exclusive single at indie stores was The Rolling Stones’ “She’s a Rainbow,” recorded live in Paris on Oct. 25, 2017, selling nearly 4,000 copies on 10” yellow-colored vinyl."
Also, BIG HITS charts at #176 on the latest BILLBOARD 200.
[www.billboard.com]
Billboard ranks the UK version as a NEW ENTRY, the US version reached #3 on the BB200 in 1966 and spent 99 weeks on the chart.
Also "She's a Rainbow (live)" is a new rock hit for the band: it charts at #41 on BILLBOARD's TOP ROCK SONGS:
[www.billboard.com]
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 26, 2019 01:42
^^^^^^^^^.… Hey that's interesting ….
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: April 26, 2019 01:51
Some Girls had
-- a crossover hit, in Miss You, that appealed to a mass audience.
-- a tour that supported it, and they played the songs.
-- all kinds of controversy (the cover, the 'black girls just wanna ..', the fallout from Keith's arrest and probably the high point of the 'Keef' mythology, a weird SNL appearance.
All of that, plus it was a great album, made it a sensation.
-- a crossover hit, in Miss You, that appealed to a mass audience.
-- a tour that supported it, and they played the songs.
-- all kinds of controversy (the cover, the 'black girls just wanna ..', the fallout from Keith's arrest and probably the high point of the 'Keef' mythology, a weird SNL appearance.
All of that, plus it was a great album, made it a sensation.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 26, 2019 02:43
There's probably very little crossover with a tour and the sales of an album. For example, TATTOO YOU had a huge single with Start Me Up, which I believe sold well as a single; Waiting On A Friend was big - not chart topping but it's a well known tune.
SOME GIRLS had probably their biggest hit single post-JJF with Miss You. More people bought the record than saw them live so...
EMOTIONAL RESCUE had good sales - no tour.
UNDERCOVER had good sales - no tour.
IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL had good sales - no tour.
Even DIRTY WORK had good sales - no tour.
It's probably a mentality that an album sells better with a tour but if that was the case, every album that had a tour would've been huge sellers. LET IT BLEED came out after the 1969 tour and their 1970 tour wasn't exactly a deep tour. STICKY FINGERS didn't exactly have a tour. EXILE didn't sell massively during and after the tour.
It's just what grabs people - and SOME GIRLS grabbed a lot of people.
SOME GIRLS had probably their biggest hit single post-JJF with Miss You. More people bought the record than saw them live so...
EMOTIONAL RESCUE had good sales - no tour.
UNDERCOVER had good sales - no tour.
IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL had good sales - no tour.
Even DIRTY WORK had good sales - no tour.
It's probably a mentality that an album sells better with a tour but if that was the case, every album that had a tour would've been huge sellers. LET IT BLEED came out after the 1969 tour and their 1970 tour wasn't exactly a deep tour. STICKY FINGERS didn't exactly have a tour. EXILE didn't sell massively during and after the tour.
It's just what grabs people - and SOME GIRLS grabbed a lot of people.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: April 26, 2019 03:30
Thanks for the info georgelicks!
Love that Rainbow is charting!
Love that Rainbow is charting!
ISO: Stones album sales post
Posted by:
exilestones
()
Date: April 25, 2019 13:26
Hi, I'm looking for the post on the Stones album sales from a few weeks ago.
Thank you
Thank you
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: April 27, 2019 02:00
With Honk making the Top 10 in the UK, the Stones achieve their 46th Top 10 album on both the UK or US.
01 - The Rolling Stones (UK #1)
02 - 12x5 (US #3)
03 - The Rolling Stones No. 2 (UK #1)
04 - Now! (US #5)
05 - Out Of Our Heads (UK #2/US #1)
06 - December's Children (US #4)
07 - Big Hits (UK/US #3)
08 - Aftermath (UK #1/US #2)
09 - Got Live If You Want It! (US #6)
10 - Between The Buttons (UK #3/US #2)
11 - Flowers (US #3)
12 - Their Satanic Majesties Request (UK #3/US #2)
13 - Beggars Banquet (UK #3/US #5)
14 - Through The Past Darkly (UK/US #2)
15 - Let It Bleed (UK #1/US #3)
16 - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! (UK #1/US #6)
17 - Stone Age (UK #4)
18 - Sticky Fingers (UK/US #1)
19 - Hot Rocks (UK #3/US #4)
20 - Exile On Main St. (UK/US #1)
21 - More Hot Rocks (US #9)
22 - Goats Head Soup (UK/US #1)
23 - It's Only Rock'n Roll (UK #2/US #1)
24 - Metamorphosis (US #8)
25 - Made In The Shade (US #6)
26 - Rolled Gold (UK #7)
27 - Black And Blue (UK #2/US #1)
28 - Love You Live (UK #3/US #5)
29 - Get Stoned (UK #8)
30 - Some Girls (UK #2/US #1)
31 - Emotional Rescue (UK/US #1)
32 - Tattoo You (UK #2/US #1)
33 - Still Life (UK #4/US #5)
34 - Undercover (UK #3/US #4)
35 - Dirty Work (UK/US #4)
36 - Steel Wheels (UK #2/US #3)
37 - Flashpoint (UK #6)
38 - Voodoo Lounge (UK #1/US #2)
39 - Stripped (UK/US #9)
40 - Bridges To Babylon (UK #6/US #3)
41 - Forty Licks (UK/US #2)
42 - A Bigger Bang (UK #2/US #3)
43 - Shine a Light (UK #2)
44 - GRRR! (UK #3)
45 - Blue & Lonesome (UK #1/US #4)
46 - Honk! (UK #8)
01 - The Rolling Stones (UK #1)
02 - 12x5 (US #3)
03 - The Rolling Stones No. 2 (UK #1)
04 - Now! (US #5)
05 - Out Of Our Heads (UK #2/US #1)
06 - December's Children (US #4)
07 - Big Hits (UK/US #3)
08 - Aftermath (UK #1/US #2)
09 - Got Live If You Want It! (US #6)
10 - Between The Buttons (UK #3/US #2)
11 - Flowers (US #3)
12 - Their Satanic Majesties Request (UK #3/US #2)
13 - Beggars Banquet (UK #3/US #5)
14 - Through The Past Darkly (UK/US #2)
15 - Let It Bleed (UK #1/US #3)
16 - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! (UK #1/US #6)
17 - Stone Age (UK #4)
18 - Sticky Fingers (UK/US #1)
19 - Hot Rocks (UK #3/US #4)
20 - Exile On Main St. (UK/US #1)
21 - More Hot Rocks (US #9)
22 - Goats Head Soup (UK/US #1)
23 - It's Only Rock'n Roll (UK #2/US #1)
24 - Metamorphosis (US #8)
25 - Made In The Shade (US #6)
26 - Rolled Gold (UK #7)
27 - Black And Blue (UK #2/US #1)
28 - Love You Live (UK #3/US #5)
29 - Get Stoned (UK #8)
30 - Some Girls (UK #2/US #1)
31 - Emotional Rescue (UK/US #1)
32 - Tattoo You (UK #2/US #1)
33 - Still Life (UK #4/US #5)
34 - Undercover (UK #3/US #4)
35 - Dirty Work (UK/US #4)
36 - Steel Wheels (UK #2/US #3)
37 - Flashpoint (UK #6)
38 - Voodoo Lounge (UK #1/US #2)
39 - Stripped (UK/US #9)
40 - Bridges To Babylon (UK #6/US #3)
41 - Forty Licks (UK/US #2)
42 - A Bigger Bang (UK #2/US #3)
43 - Shine a Light (UK #2)
44 - GRRR! (UK #3)
45 - Blue & Lonesome (UK #1/US #4)
46 - Honk! (UK #8)
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: April 27, 2019 02:03
Nice, thanks georgelicks!
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 27, 2019 02:26
Quote
GasLightStreet
SOME GIRLS had probably their biggest hit single post-JJF with Miss You.
actually skippy, Honky Tonk Women and Angie were bigger singles than Miss You.
And JJF doesn't make their top 5 singles.
Re: Statistics, sales and other boring stuff
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: April 27, 2019 04:53
Quote
georgelicks
And just for the record, last week Hot Rocks reached the week 300 on The Billboard 200 chart.
I'm always sort of glad to see HR up there, as generations come and go.
For me it's great joy that people are listening to the same songs and performances
that stunned everyone right from the start on the AM radio.
that's world shaking stuff; i can't argue with any of it.
i dunno if it signals that generally people ARE 'getting' the good stuff,
or not, in contemporary society 2019.
It's 50 years since the ya yas. tour (and my High School graduation,
they railroaded me out, ida bin happy to still be there,
cuz, girls.
...
i'm not sure if there is a trackable demographic that's digging into it, age-wise, during various decades till now, tho. and am curious about that.
the 'kids'?
thirties, forties...old fahts? hard to tell...
anyone got a stab at that?
Re: ISO: Stones album sales post
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: July 10, 2019 01:19
Just an update in the middle of the US tour:
Both, Hot Rocks and Honk remain steady in the Billboard 200 chart with around 6-5k units each one.
US sales for both albums during 2019 are 130k for Hot Rocks and 78k for Honk.
[www.billboard.com]
Both, Hot Rocks and Honk remain steady in the Billboard 200 chart with around 6-5k units each one.
US sales for both albums during 2019 are 130k for Hot Rocks and 78k for Honk.
[www.billboard.com]
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 10, 2019 01:56
It will be interesting to see how HONK shakes out amongst their own catalog ie not ABKCO hits comps along with FORTY LICKS and THE SIMIAN DISASTER.
REWIND sold... dismally. MADE IN THE SHADE eventually sold 1 million copies. SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES is still ranked at Gold from what I can tell, the same for REWIND.
JUMP BACK and FORTY LICKS better.
REWIND sold... dismally. MADE IN THE SHADE eventually sold 1 million copies. SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES is still ranked at Gold from what I can tell, the same for REWIND.
JUMP BACK and FORTY LICKS better.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: July 10, 2019 03:27
Shit ; that thread kills!!!
Thank you Doxa.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Thank you Doxa.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 10, 2019 14:59
Thanks for the update, georgelicks!
After the quick (and rather mild) rush in sales of a new release, HONK seemingly is taking the old function of JUMP BACK being a steady seller covering their post-71 cataloque. Like georgelicks said in HONK's own thread its sales been about 200 000 worlwide (now probably 20-30 000 more). And it will be mostly streaming from now on, of which all those missyous, startmeups and angies are taking care of. That of the Stones touring US doesn't look much having an effect to its sales in that market. We are talking about some 30% of its worldwide sales, which is just mildly more than their sales generally 8 US market vs. the rest of the world; see my post about that in the first page). But, however, dramatically a bigger percantage than with BLUE & LONESOME, though! Time to add the album to my list (in my first post) as their 56th best selling album ever....
Anyway, we need to point out that its predecessor JUMP BACK didn't make top ten neither in US or UK charts (something what HONK did in UK!, see georgelick's posts above), but in the long run with its 6.9 million sales it turned out to be their 8th most selling album ever, and the biggest after FORTY LICKS since TATTOO YOU. As we know, no albums sell like that, not even closely, any longer, but with its steady selling (streaming) numbers, and if it remains a major release to cover that era, probably we will see it reaching a million sales within some years. HOT ROCKS's little brother...
But about HOT ROCKS - if it alraedy has sold 130 000 in US market alone in 2019, it has surpassed 13 million, if not even 14, in its over-all sales worldwide by now. The last sort of certified number I know is 12,7 m from 2016.
Lastly a request to georgelicks - do you happen to know the sale numbers for ON AIR and - which might more difficult - TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 15:07 by Doxa.
After the quick (and rather mild) rush in sales of a new release, HONK seemingly is taking the old function of JUMP BACK being a steady seller covering their post-71 cataloque. Like georgelicks said in HONK's own thread its sales been about 200 000 worlwide (now probably 20-30 000 more). And it will be mostly streaming from now on, of which all those missyous, startmeups and angies are taking care of. That of the Stones touring US doesn't look much having an effect to its sales in that market. We are talking about some 30% of its worldwide sales, which is just mildly more than their sales generally 8 US market vs. the rest of the world; see my post about that in the first page). But, however, dramatically a bigger percantage than with BLUE & LONESOME, though! Time to add the album to my list (in my first post) as their 56th best selling album ever....
Anyway, we need to point out that its predecessor JUMP BACK didn't make top ten neither in US or UK charts (something what HONK did in UK!, see georgelick's posts above), but in the long run with its 6.9 million sales it turned out to be their 8th most selling album ever, and the biggest after FORTY LICKS since TATTOO YOU. As we know, no albums sell like that, not even closely, any longer, but with its steady selling (streaming) numbers, and if it remains a major release to cover that era, probably we will see it reaching a million sales within some years. HOT ROCKS's little brother...
But about HOT ROCKS - if it alraedy has sold 130 000 in US market alone in 2019, it has surpassed 13 million, if not even 14, in its over-all sales worldwide by now. The last sort of certified number I know is 12,7 m from 2016.
Lastly a request to georgelicks - do you happen to know the sale numbers for ON AIR and - which might more difficult - TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 15:07 by Doxa.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 10, 2019 15:48
Quote
GasLightStreet
It will be interesting to see how HONK shakes out amongst their own catalog ie not ABKCO hits comps along with FORTY LICKS and THE SIMIAN DISASTER.
REWIND sold... dismally. MADE IN THE SHADE eventually sold 1 million copies. SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES is still ranked at Gold from what I can tell, the same for REWIND.
JUMP BACK and FORTY LICKS better.
I kinda answered to your open question in my post above - it will be a steady seller as long as it will remain a major (and most easily reachable) release to cover post-71 era. The streaming of its 'big hits' will take care of that (the hardcore fans and completists have done their bit by now - and as we have seen here, it wasn't any strongly hailed release here - from now on it belongs to the casual fans to stream...). But, however, that of it ever reaching the numbers of the past similar collections, is doubtful.
Here is the sale numbers in millions from 2016 for the albums you mentioned:
REWIND: 2,5
SUCKING IN THE 70'S: 1,3
MADE IN THE SHADE: 1,9
.
.
.
JUMP BACK 6,9
I don't have numbers for TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE, and about the only reference I could find for its reception, was that of (1) it wasn't released in their best selling market (US), (2) but where it did - UK mostly - it didn't chart, and (3) it was a commercial flop and withthrown & forgotten rather quickly. So, probably we are not here talking about a million seller, but more like a collector's item.
(I'm not sure if THE SIMIAN DISASTER refers to a gorilla or boots album...
)- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 15:51 by Doxa.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
MidnightDevilRambler
()
Date: July 10, 2019 15:51
So 15. BRIDGES TO BABYLON 4,7 isn't the dog it's painted out to be.
I really enjoyed it and the tour a lot.
Mike
[www.flickr.com]
I really enjoyed it and the tour a lot.
Mike
[www.flickr.com]
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: July 10, 2019 16:12
Quote
Doxa
Lastly a request to georgelicks - do you happen to know the sale numbers for ON AIR and - which might more difficult - TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE?
- Doxa
On Air has sold close to 180k worldwide, around 55k in the US and 30k in the UK.
Time Waits For No One only charted in Australia for a week at #98 in 1979, we don't know much more about it, I don't think it reached 100k sold worldwide.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 10, 2019 16:17
Quote
MidnightDevilRambler
So 15. BRIDGES TO BABYLON 4,7 isn't the dog it's painted out to be.
I really enjoyed it and the tour a lot.
BRIDGES sold better than the big 4, if I remember correctly.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 10, 2019 16:19
Quote
georgelicks
On Air has sold close to 180k worldwide, around 55k in the US and 30k in the UK.
Time Waits For No One only charted in Australia for a week at #98 in 1979, we don't know much more about it, I don't think it reached 100k sold worldwide.
I'll add those to my list (and estimate TWFNO around 100k)... I guess a rather disappointing numbers for ON AIR after the success of BLUE & LONESOME. Many considered it as a kind of follower for the latter.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-07-10 16:31 by Doxa.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: July 10, 2019 20:04
Quote
DoxaQuote
georgelicks
On Air has sold close to 180k worldwide, around 55k in the US and 30k in the UK.
Time Waits For No One only charted in Australia for a week at #98 in 1979, we don't know much more about it, I don't think it reached 100k sold worldwide.
I'll add those to my list (and estimate TWFNO around 100k)... I guess a rather disappointing numbers for ON AIR after the success of BLUE & LONESOME. Many considered it as a kind of follower for the latter.
- Doxa
The right time to release a BBC album was around 1994-2000, about the same time that the Beatles released their set or the Anthology series.
A BBC album in 2017 with all the material available in youtube and with album sales at 20-25% in comparison to 1995, well the results were obvious.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
ShaTurd
()
Date: July 10, 2019 20:11
They sold more of "Dirty Work" than "Ya-Ya's"...amazing....
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
marquess
()
Date: July 10, 2019 20:24
Quote
Doxa
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 6,7
10. VOODOO LOUNGE 6,4
11. GOATS HEAD SOUP 6,4
12. THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY 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. REWIND 2,5
28. BLUE & LONESOME 2,5 (?)
29. THE ROLLING STONES 2,5
30. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES 2,5
31. LOVE YOU LIVE 2,5
32. GREATEST HITS 2,4
33. GRRR! 2,2
34. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS 2,2
35. SINGLES COLLECTION: THE LONDON YEARS 2,2
36. MADE IN THE SHADE 1,9
37. MORE HOT ROCKS 1,7
38. GO LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! 1,7
39. 12X5 1,7
40. FLOWERS 1,5
41. SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES 1,3
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. THE ROLLING STONES NO 2 1,0
48. LIVE LICKS 0,8
49. SHINE A LIGHT 0,7
50. STONE AGE 0,5
51. ROCK & ROLL CIRCUS 0,5
52. GIMME SHELTER 0,4
53. MILESTONES 0,4
54. RARITIES 1971-2003 0,4
55. SWEET SUMMER SUN 0,3
56. STORY OF THE STONES 0,3
57. HONK 0,2
58. THE VERY BEST OF 0,2
59. BRAVO 0,2
60. ON AIR 0,2
61. 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 #27-31 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
Great information!
But A Bigger Bang is missing in the sales rank.
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 29, 2019 17:18
Quote
marquess
Great information!
But A Bigger Bang is missing in the sales rank.
Thanks! I need to add A BIGGER BANG to my original list. It will take some work, but it will make #26 with its 2.6 m sales. Thanks again for your observation!
- Doxa
Re: Statistics, sales and other extremely fascinating stuff
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: July 29, 2019 17:41
Voodoo Lounge sold pretty damn well.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adrianmfa2 , daisybenito , DandelionPowderman , daniel t , django , Doxa , gimme_shelter , guytout59 , Heartbreaker 69 , Irix , mikey C , pooroldgrandad , RobertJohnson , Spud
Guests:
1991
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10