I think Michael Jackson's Thriller album sold 40 million copies. Does that make it a good record? I don't even have it in my record collection, where I have a lot of Stones but still a lot of other music. And I think there was like one single from every track and every single from Thriller made a number one or something in the charts. Does that make it a good record?

As long as I like it myself - and I do - I don't really care if only one or one million or ten million other people like it, really.

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as I like it myself - and I do - I don't
> really care if only one or one million or ten
> million other people like it, really.

Fully agree with those words! The general musical taste nowadays is not for me...


[There'll be no wedding today...]

Splattered, All Over Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, the taste in music for the majority in the
> US sucks.


I would agree with you. But why be sad about it? Be like me and consider yourself intellectually superior!

Since the onset of MTV it seems to me that popular music has become more of a "product", to be marketed. The type of music that you like is thus in some ways a type of fashion accessory. If you want to be a suburban "G", you listen to Emienem. If you want to be a doom and gloom stoner, you listen to Disturbed. If you want to be an urban hipster, you listen to techno. This has always been true to some extent, but there are more choices, (more genres) today. The Stones "image", and their age doesn't provide an adequate amount of cool to a lot of younger folks. And they are the big buyers.

But, I would agree with Bjornulf. Why care? Enjoy the Stones.

Karl



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-27 21:32 by KSIE.

i think we only care about the stones record sales is because we love them and we want everyone to love them...and this album is GREAT..we want all to love it..
again, the stones are just history to many that are 16,18 etc..and another great album would get the kids hooked on the stones...i think they saw and liked this album but not enough to buy...but next album, soon would get the stones back to the top..yes, they are still selling better world wide and selling tickets better that most....let it rock .

While I don't see it as a flop artistically, commercially it looks like it hit the "proverbial" wall as far as sales go. Ashlee Simplson sells 200m+ units
in the first week alone...does that make it any better than ABB? In the eyes
of record companies, she rocks...but let's see her tour the country and sell out
multiple arenas and stadiums..in the eyes of promoters...the Stones rock..and roll.

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Splattered, All Over Manhattan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sadly, the taste in music for the majority in
> the
> > US sucks.
>
>
> I would agree with you. But why be sad about it?
> Be like me and consider yourself intellectually
> superior!...........


Having Sirius radio, the only time I listen to FM is in the car, that is when a Stones CD is not playing. The Stones are hardly ever played on radio anymore. Guess what I meant by "sadly" was that it's a bummer that even the rock, classic rock and KOOL-FM's rarely play the Stones. If these stations don't play the Stones new or even classic tunes, it is a sad statement indeed about the state of music in America today.

Won't even waste my time or yours about the garbage that passes as "today's" music.

Won't even waste my time or yours about the garbage that passes as "today's" music.

I hear U, SAOM!

bv is right, who cares how many albums they sold? They are still a great band and the hardcore fans still love them, even if the majority of the general public doesn't.

It's amazing they can even get to number three. Chuck Berry was 62 in 1988 and people would have dropped over dead from shock if he'd had a number three record then. I think his last hit was in the early 1970s. In a way I wish the Stones had a lot less fans; they'd play smaller venues and the ticket prices would be cheaper!

Why didn't this album sell better in the states? Three main reasons I can think of:

1) Poor marketing (video for first single still isn't out and now it's far too late, plus the first single was Streets of Love, the only bad song on the album and the worst thing they have ever released)

2) Young people for the most part won't buy music from older bands

3) Old people for the most part won't buy music from any bands. Where the hell are the 8 million people who bought Some Girls in 1978? Ok, some of them are dead, maybe a million or two at most. Why didn't the other 4-6 million buy it? Because they are too "mature" to buy and listen to rock anymore. They would rather spend their money on a gas guzzling SUV that destroys the environment or an expensive new piece of furniture they don't need except to impress their stuffy friends with how sophisticated and adult they are. Who needs those people! Screw 'em!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-28 16:44 by ohnonotyouagain.

Bad timing. An earlier release would be smart. They know released it together with i.e. 50 Cent.

A lot of good points, but to me the big reasons for DISAPPOINTING (by Stones standards, as in less than 40 Lix, B2B & VL) has to do with the issue that began with VL, their first album w/ no big hit single (SW's Mixed Emotions reached # 5, Rock In a Hard Place # 23) - lack of significant radio play, & fundamental changes in radio formats over the past 10-15 years. Many big acts, including Neil Young, REM, Pearl Jam, (the latter 2 are 20 & 30 years younger than the Stones as bands) & others have a hard time getting airplay on new albums, & sales have suffered as a consequence. The discrepency between who does well on tour & who gets airplay/hit albums is dramatic. You can hear Led Zep (or Neil's 'Heart Of Gold) on certain formats every day, but not the new Robert Plant, which went from # 22 - # 84 in its first 2 weeks - a very well received cd by both fans & critics. That's why the RS have taken deals w/ that soap, the NFL, etc...

Because it IS a flop... duh.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

There are two reasons.

First reason, the horrible "promotion". US is the capital of the music industry. Without a good, atleast decent marketing, you can't sell good in the capital of the music marketing. So Simple.
Second reason,"Neo Con"! I think the song has something to do with the bad promotion. Think about it. Ask Clear Channel...

Happy to see that ABB sells great in the rest of the planet. On it's 7th week, at #21 of the worldwide chart (1.8 million already despite the poor sales in US). After spending two weeks at #1, three more on top10 (#3, #5,#8) and one at #12, that's VERY GOOD. Am i wrong Georgelicks??

For the Stones' part, they should never go below 4 new ones live, & would be better off doing 5 or 6.

The album sold about 1'500'000 copies worldwide until now, maybe at $15 each.
If every guy buying the album would buy one of those infamous $450 concert tickets well that would be a mountain of cash. $675 million to be exact. Plus selling themselves to the Superbowl. To some soap opera. To Microsoft. To Heineken etc etc etc
Who cares about the music anyway these days.

Blaming lack of sales on "Neocon" lyrics doesn't make sense in light of the huge success of Green Day's American Idiot. That whole album is a rant against Bush's policies.

The promo-single 'Streets Of Love' is mediocre at best - a lesser reworking of 'Out Of Tears' - and the much publicized Sweet-necon probably contains the worst line Jagger has ever recorded = 'You're just a crock-o-shit' That an experienced songwriter such as Jagger has resorted to such non-thinking yobbish criticism is just embarrasing. It doesn't matter whether you agree with views expressed or not it ruins the song. It may have brought the stones some publicity (no publicity is bad publicity etc) but it's still dreadful - Fortunately ABB contains a lot of strong material to compensate.

Because they release the wrong songs as songs for airplay. Because they did not release a single before the album. because Virgin suck. Because they pretend to be something they are not instead of just being themselves. Because ONNYA and DTF rock and no one who hasn't bought the album will have heard them. because LIND was not the slow ballad released. Because they rushed they album. Rushed the Video's. Rushed the album cover (I mean it doesn't even have the song titles on the back!). Rushed the song selection and number of tracks. Because Mick engnored Vigin when they told him there were too many tracks on the album.

Because RJ didn't make number 1 they gave up promoting it. It is a good song and the chart placing it got was very respectable.

The Stones record buying demograph is not the main buyers
of new music anymore. Also their market has been saturated
with re-releases. Add up all their back catalogue sales from
the past few years,throw in the DVD For Flicks package,
and I think you will find that overall, they still do fine.
But maybe not so in the top ten department. No one release,
at any one point in time, is likely to sell enough
for them to have a big hit anymore. But overall,
are they hurting? I think not. The tour tickets
sell at a premium. Most stores carry their
catalogue, often at top dollar prices.
And they've got a quite respectable
new disc to add to their canon.
Over time I think ABB will sell
quite well too, especially when
we consider the wider world
sales. The boys are doing
just great thank you!

They are plenty of current top 10 artists who can barely fill a 2,000 seater.

Chas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are plenty of current top 10 artists who can
> barely fill a 2,000 seater.

The problem about these artists is they don't even care. They don't earn their money at the concerts. They earn it with their albums (unlike the Stones). The only reason they play these concerts is to have some scenes for their next videos.

Still I'd like to see the Stones in a 2'000 seater without all that circus that keeps people wanting to SEE them (instead of HEARING to them which makes their music becomeing marginal, instead they're blowing fireworks and inflating ladies).

Because after the initial thrill of getting a new album from the band we love, the material proved pretty pedestrian.

I'd love to see Sympathy performed w/o Flames and all that crap.

Chas says: "Blaming lack of sales on "Neocon" lyrics doesn't make sense in light of the huge success of Green Day's American Idiot. That whole album is a rant against Bush's policies."

Chas, that's not the same case. American Idiot (not the previous Creen Day's albums, also for sure not their next records) has an extraordinary success that obviously is the peak of their career. Something like Oasis in the years of "Morning Glory" (and now Oasis are selling in the US olnly 160,000 copies during 3 years! But that's another story about the bands and the music industry).

BUT have you noticed that even American Idiot's success in the USA isn't so huge IN COMPARISON to the worldwide sales of the album? Four millions out of 14, about 28%. Is this a normal "american concern" of the universal sales for an album of Green Day? I wonder... What about the selling analogies (USA/wordwilde) of the previous GD albums? Only Georgelicks knows...

Back to ABB: Yes, for various reasons (i said what i believe- basically bad marketing) the US market represents only the 17% of the universal sales. But the sales worldwide are VERY GOOD! Already 1.8 million copies sold, every week the record keeps the 70% of previous week's sales. Remember the positions: #1-#1-#3-#5-#8-#12-#21.

KSIE-- so true!!! People just want to go to the Mall (or go online) and by a quick, easy identity without putting too much thought into it.

It does suck that radio won't play new songs by classic rock artists. They are so rigid; I think they are underestimating the listeners. It seems like the average fan wouldn't mind giving up hearing Brown Sugar for the 10 millionth time (until the next day when they play it again) if it meant getting to hear something new they might like by the same band.

Does anybody know of a good internet radio station where they play a good mix of old and new rock? I'd like to hear Rough Justice alongside Jumping Jack Flash and Whole Lotta Love alongside Shine It All Around, a song from Robert Plant's new album, which is excellent by the way. I love ABB but Plant's new album (Mighty Rearranger) is better I dare say.

Baby boomers don't care. They have other interests now. Half of them wouldn't know if they exist. No receive no air time here in Charlotte market

Measuring record sales as a means of interpreting the Stones success is to look at the wrong end of the telescope; they're not in the record selling business, they're in the concert ticket selling business. They know that their real value is in live performances (always has been) and that's where they've been putting their energy at least since Cohl in 1989.
It's a very different business model for the Stones than it is for most musical acts, and it's certainly different for them today than it was when they started. So in part the answer to the question is that that they haven't spent the time and energy on promoting the album that others have and do because, to paraphrase a bank robber, that's not where the money is.
An other reason is that the Stones serve a global market, not just the States, so while a song like SOL is a hit in Europe it doesn't even get on the radar in the US. If you consider SOL to be the single off this album (I don't), then it becomes pretty clear that the Stones are aiming at markets outside of the US to be the strongest for album sales; meanwhile, within the US, they're selling concert tickets for 450 a pop.
And is it a flop? Relatively speaking, how's it done compared to Macca, Plant, or other acts from the "heritage" rock genre? Are there any other acts that you can think of who are in their 60's and from the 60's who hit number 3 this year? By that standard, it's an unrivalled success.

Rightly or wrongly, the perception that most people have of the Rolling Stones is that of a sixties/seventies band that used to make great music but who can still put on a great (though expensive) live show. Few would expect them to put anything decent out on record these days, especially when the band themselves pay such scarce lip service to anything made during the last 25 years.

Also, this has been discussed many times before, but they should be selling A Bigger Bang at the shows. I know, there are tons of great legal and financial reasons they don't, but the bottom line is if they wanted to, they could. They have the clout, they could work out whatever deals they need to get it done.

How many people will see this tour before it's over? I think the number is about 4 million (87 shows, average attendance 50,000 each), someone please correct my math if you have better info. But I think 4 million is right.

Probably 70% of the crowd does not have A Bigger Bang. If just one out of every four people at the concert bought A Bigger Bang, that would be 25% of the audience, which would add another 1 million in sales to A Bigger Bang. They are stupid not to do this if you ask me.

Camper88:

>>so while a song like SOL is a hit in Europe it doesn't even get on the radar in the US. If you consider SOL to be the single off this album (I don't), then it becomes pretty clear that the Stones are aiming at markets outside of the US to be the strongest for album sales<<

Very relevant post! I'd say Jethro Tull has seemed to be doing the same kind of "pitching" in recent years.


black n blue:

>>Baby boomers don't care. They have other interests now. Half of them wouldn't know if they exist.<<


Right, but I suspect a conspiracy from the media regarding this. My own little empirical theory is that music is bad for today's industry and consumerism. The other day at the grocery store, someone by mistake had programmed a radio station or muzak station or whatever where some forgotten gem by the Doobie Bros started playing (in place of let's say Celine Dion). All of a sudden my wife and I had forgotten all about the lousy day at the job, hummed along in the aisles, OMITTING TO PICK ABOUT HALF THE STUFF WE WOULD HAVE NORMALLY BOUGHT!! We got the same feeling out of this, all of a sudden became young bohemian-like lazy and neglectful consumers again... That's BAD for the market!!

Our own MTV affiliate station here in Montreal is getting more and more into titties fashion shows, Hollywood glamour stories and esp. into sex-oriented reality shows. And less and less into music... AM radio is the same: more talk and talk ("keep talking, we hear you"), more commercial, but minimal music content...

Frank Zappa: "Kill Ugly Radio!"