Aside from that article (can't get it to load for some reason but it is on a few pages in this thread) about the 18 month marketing plan, the album and Mess It Up video single and remix came out the same day and... aside from whatever goofy vinyl things have happened, absolutely zero has happened.

Officially I've never seen anything about UMG/Polydor/etc dropping/stopping the marketing.

Which they obviously did. A fourth single would've made sense when the tour started. That would've been month 9!!! This month is 18.

Perhaps in April of 2024 Universal bought the 2025 Grammy so they stopped since that is month 18 of the plan.

I never thought about it - who can keep up with the stupidity of the Grammys? - but now it seems a bit obvious that's what possibly happened. Complete fabrication on my part, haven't read that anywhere, but it's really looking obvious.

I think what is obvious is that the "18 month marketing plan" completely went off the rails at some point very early.

There was the issue of the singles, 3 of them in quick succession. The second one with Gaga should have had a video, they must have recorded the session.

That was marketing malfeasance not to have released edits in the studio of that as the single. In the studio footage of their recording it would have been awesome.

The third single Mess It Up didn't even contain any footage of the band. It was generic and I didn't watch it a second time, totally uninteresting.

Then to GLS's point, no new single to kick of the tour? WWW would have been the perfect song. My teenage kids were raving about it in the car on the way back home from the concert.

Then a perhaps an even more ominous sign, the "movie" about Hackney Diamonds never materialized. What the hell? Mick felt pretty confident about it during the presser...and then we never hear about it ever again?

Something happened along the way which we'll probably never know for sure about but it derailed the marketing effort. Maybe a lot of money was spent on the launch and when the album didn't carry enough sustained sales they decided it wasn't worth it? Anyway it was too bad.

For me the biggest mistake was not having a proper video for SSoH. That was operator error.

Hackney Diamonds reached number one in 19 countries worldwide, has sold over 1.2 million copies and won a GRAMMY. Why additional marketing?

Quote
Irix
Hackney Diamonds reached number one in 19 countries worldwide, has sold over 1.2 million copies and won a GRAMMY. Why additional marketing?

The 1.2 million is world wide sales. That's not exactly a lot. At least in regard to actual sales. Obviously nowadays it probably is considered a success thanks to Shitify etc.

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

They make more in one show than their entire catalog makes in sales now and probably the previous 5 albums combined.

Obscene exaggeration. I have no idea.

Certainly they understand that sales is not what it's about anymore, although elements of UMe/UMG, SME/SMG and WMG are tied to the past, hence the deluxe reissues on vinyl blah blah blah.

I did like Mess it up the most when the album was released, and I still find it the tune with the most potential on the album.

HOWEVER... I find myself listening to Angry each day. It actually still grows on me. A great tune.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

They make more in one show than their entire catalog makes in sales now and probably the previous 5 albums combined.

Obscene exaggeration. I have no idea.

Certainly they understand that sales is not what it's about anymore, although elements of UMe/UMG, SME/SMG and WMG are tied to the past, hence the deluxe reissues on vinyl blah blah blah.

The Beatles timed it right in the 90s doing those vault releases, that was probably peak of the market in terms of unit sales. Holding on to the catalogue too long meant 2 things, one perhaps unforeseen and the other quite predictable.

The move to streaming maybe was hard to predict but the fan base getting older and not being replaced at the same rate should have been easy to figure out.

You're just not going to get as many sales as in the past, as a legacy act.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

They make more in one show than their entire catalog makes in sales now and probably the previous 5 albums combined.

Obscene exaggeration. I have no idea.

Certainly they understand that sales is not what it's about anymore, although elements of UMe/UMG, SME/SMG and WMG are tied to the past, hence the deluxe reissues on vinyl blah blah blah.

The Beatles timed it right in the 90s doing those vault releases, that was probably peak of the market in terms of unit sales. Holding on to the catalogue too long meant 2 things, one perhaps unforeseen and the other quite predictable.

The move to streaming maybe was hard to predict but the fan base getting older and not being replaced at the same rate should have been easy to figure out.

You're just not going to get as many sales as in the past, as a legacy act.

thats the name sadly enough: legacy act... they would need a co-op or PR-stunt to get back in the game among the youth

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

They make more in one show than their entire catalog makes in sales now and probably the previous 5 albums combined.

Obscene exaggeration. I have no idea.

Certainly they understand that sales is not what it's about anymore, although elements of UMe/UMG, SME/SMG and WMG are tied to the past, hence the deluxe reissues on vinyl blah blah blah.

The Beatles timed it right in the 90s doing those vault releases, that was probably peak of the market in terms of unit sales. Holding on to the catalogue too long meant 2 things, one perhaps unforeseen and the other quite predictable.

The move to streaming maybe was hard to predict but the fan base getting older and not being replaced at the same rate should have been easy to figure out.

You're just not going to get as many sales as in the past, as a legacy act.

thats the name sadly enough: legacy act... they would need a co-op or PR-stunt to get back in the game among the youth

Which they do try - Lady Gaga, Dua Lupa, and the whole internet interview thing with Fallon as most recent examples.

They are trying, you have to give them that. But come on, they are in their 80s. Our expectations have to be mitigated. In the end who cares if they sell or stream in the millions, as long as they aren't dissuaded because they're not "top of the pops" any longer?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The 1.2 million is world wide sales.

Even it would be the double amount - in album sales there's less money to be made than in touring.

They make more in one show than their entire catalog makes in sales now and probably the previous 5 albums combined.

Obscene exaggeration. I have no idea.

Certainly they understand that sales is not what it's about anymore, although elements of UMe/UMG, SME/SMG and WMG are tied to the past, hence the deluxe reissues on vinyl blah blah blah.

The Beatles timed it right in the 90s doing those vault releases, that was probably peak of the market in terms of unit sales. Holding on to the catalogue too long meant 2 things, one perhaps unforeseen and the other quite predictable.

The move to streaming maybe was hard to predict but the fan base getting older and not being replaced at the same rate should have been easy to figure out.

You're just not going to get as many sales as in the past, as a legacy act.

thats the name sadly enough: legacy act... they would need a co-op or PR-stunt to get back in the game among the youth

Which they do try - Lady Gaga, Dua Lupa, and the whole internet interview thing with Fallon as most recent examples.

They are trying, you have to give them that. But come on, they are in their 80s. Our expectations have to be mitigated. In the end who cares if they sell or stream in the millions, as long as they aren't dissuaded because they're not "top of the pops" any longer?

Whatever happened to the Rumoured Dua Lipa colab btw? Or was she just visiting the studio?

Quote
tiffanyblu

Whatever happened to the Rumoured Dua Lipa colab btw? Or was she just visiting the studio?

I think the presumption is there's a track held for the next album, but no one I'm sure knows for sure, excepting the "inner circle".

Quote
tiffanyblu

Whatever happened to the Rumoured Dua Lipa colab btw? Or was she just visiting the studio?

Who knows: [Instagram.com] ?

When the Stones (Rolling Stones Records) left Atlantic and EMI for Columbia/CBS (Sony) in 1983 for a $25 million distribution deal the hype was "the back catalog", 9 studio albums, STICKY FINGERS through UNDERCOVER along, with the two live albums and four compilations, and Rolling Stones Records was just a name - it wasn't a record label anymore. The 3 acts signed to RSR were over.

When they signed with Virgin Records in 1991 for a $45 million distribution deal, Rolling Stones Records was obsolete. And once again the hype was "the back catalog", which at that point was a bit bigger with DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, with only 2 of the 4 compilations reissued (MADE IN THE SHADE and SUCKING). EMI bought Virgin in 1992.

2008 and then 2018 the Stones signed with UMG, who devoured EMI in 2012, and, well, "the back catalog" was now huge plus lots of live shows to release on video and audio.

Record sales, including downloads, were still a thing in 2008 but ten years later record sales were basically dead, even with the very low end "come back" of vinyl.


What's a back catalog worth now? It certainly can't be like it was. Yet writers and artists and record labels have sold their rights and gotten a ton of money by selling their entire catalog.

Bob Dylan sold "100% of his publishing catalogue to Universal Music Publishing est. US$300-400 million" and "Sony acquired his master recordings... worth another ~US$200 million."

Sting - $300 million. Loads of others.

[www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com]


That's absolutely bonkers. There's a link about just the rights that were bought in 2021.

Aside from the odd commercial here and there and movie placement, with streaming paying, on average, $.004 per stream, think Sony and BMG etc are thinking they're geniuses?


Billions of dollars spent on hundreds of catalogs and rights and masters of artists and record labels. Bonkers. None of the artists/writers - originators - will ever make money from their sold music again except from performing live.


The Stones haven't sold and it sounds like they won't. They'll be one of possibly just a handful that don't/won't. Maybe a majority of that list that have really needed the money - or they saw how they weren't going to make much money thanks to streaming so...

Apparently a back catalog is worth a ton of money to someone but it doesn't make much, oh, $.004!!!!


Certainly there was a result in the Stones catalog, in general, spiking in streams when HACKNEY DIAMONDS came out but the only thing that charted was HOT ROCKS but the Stones make, say, 90% of their $$$ from touring.


Rocky made a list in 2005 as to how the Stones operate. It's really fascinating.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Musidor is the company formed by The Stones and Prince Rupert Lowenstein to administer their name, likeness, and tongue and lips logo. Promotone is the company formed by The Stones and Prince Rupert that retains copyright control of all of their recordings and allows their catalog to travel with the band when they depart a label. Promopub is the publishing arm of Promotone that retains publishing rights to Jagger-Richards songs. In 1977, Columbia-Screen Gems-EMI bought the Promopub catalog and published all Jagger-Richards songs from 1978-1984. Promopub was revived as a separate entity in 1985. Since 1999, Promopub has been acquiring songs from the original catalog as well as songs from the Colgems-EMI catalog as they become available. At some future date, Promopub will control all non-ABKCO Jagger-Richards songs. In addition, Promopub publishes all pre-Goddess Jagger solo songs, all of Keith's solo songs, and Charlie's jazz compositions. Keith and Charlie's songs are funnelled through Promopub's subsidiary, Pubpromo. Promotone retains copyright control of Mick's first three solo albums, but don't be surprised if they end up with Jagged Recordings before long. Promotour controls copyrights for various band home video releases as well as some of Charlie's jazz recordings. All of these companies are based in the Netherlands for tax reasons.

Whoever pays the recording costs for the Stones, whether it's UMG with Polydor and Geffen or the Stones, certainly they're interested in making the money back. The Stones' royalty rate with Virgin was 25% per album!!!!!!!

When the Stones left EMI, EMI retained their publishing rights.

Haven't been able to find any information on what their royalty rates are with UMG but it's very likely more than $.004 per stream (a label makes approximately 80% of the $$$). And it's possible the Stones fit the minimum of needing to have every song get 1000 streams just to be eligible for a royalty on Spotify.

If that isn't achieved, Spotify drops the song or even the artist. But they also drop artists for other reasons that are bunk. Spotify is evil!!!

[medium.com]



In 2023 UMG and Deezer did something to screw over indie artists. This is as bad as Spotify. It's unreal.

[aristake.com]



Apple is nice to artists. For every 1,000 streams, Apple Music pays artists about $6 to $10.

[www.musicgateway.com]


I abandoned (free) Spotify in 2021. I've used AppleMusic with their 3 month trial one time. I did buy Living In A Ghost Town in 2019 from iTunes.

When the day arrives that I am basically forced to stream music I will pay for AppleMusic.

I wish more people would. Because Apple pays indie artists and doesn't just feed the big labels like UMG, WMG and Sony. With UMG is attempting to reign the entire industry it looks like Apple will be the best support for artists to make some kind of a living from streaming.


If that helps the Stones somehow in terms of, say, HACKNEY DIAMONDS being successful enough for them to continue to bother with making another album, great. It's too bad Mick doesn't advocate for streaming services to pay better other than his comments on how the music industry is not static.

When you make millions of dollars every few months perhaps there's no reason to notice. Mick can't get angry at that.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Spotify is evil!!!

Besides Apple Music, there're also e.g. TIDAL, Qobuz and Amazon Music - all with lossless HiRes streaming.

Quote
GasLightStreet

When you make millions of dollars every few months perhaps there's no reason to notice. Mick can't get angry at that.

Jean-Michel Jarre tried to change that as (former) president of the global rights-organisation CISAC already in 2016:

“It is not a matter that we should complain about because we are now entering an entirely new age. We’ve never been listening to so much music. If you take a company like Spotify, its value is more than $8 billion and yet the majority of artists at the end of the year get the cost of a pizza without pepperoni. So it is something we have to readjust – we have to reinvent a business model for the 21st century for artists.” - [Forbes.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-25 23:55 by Irix.

Irix, TIDAL is on the verge of ending.

I have Prime but for some reason the music player refuses to work even though I should have access to everything.

That's really weird. I get notifications that I'm not taking advantage of it, have emailed - nothing. I gave up.

I've slowly been looking around but I generally play CDs (or playlists on my PC from CDs) or vinyl. I love music but I hardly listen to it enough to justify having whatever streaming service.

In 2024 I caught up on a few things music wise, mostly Stones, that I missed out on because of severe life constraints but the fun was missing of a record store. It's been replaced by a package at your door etc. I think the term "anti-climatic" is what some people would call it; still the joy of getting something but the hunt is on a screen (phone, usually) and it's so lifeless. There's one place near me that sells CDs and vinyl but the selection is bizarre so I gave up on that, too.

Although I was quite geeked up about getting HACKNEY DIAMONDS. That was a great day to get a package at the door!!! Unless I've been glazed over it looks like the only thing from the Stones to look forward to next is the supposed BLACK AND BLUE deluxe. I did get the HD+Live release but I'm not interested in the 15 vinyl versions.