I’ve been discussing this extensively in other threads, so it’s refreshing to see this finally being acknowledged here.

I’d like to contribute a few observations: I’m 36, and among my closest friends—who, not surprisingly, are also Stones fans because I got them into it—most still recognize more Queen songs than Rolling Stones tracks. Among my wider circle of acquaintances, they’ve likely heard of The Rolling Stones but usually know only "Paint It Black." Tracks like "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or "Honky Tonk Women" don’t seem to resonate—they simply don’t recognize them. At the same time - they can do sing a long to at least 10 Queen songs!

This, I believe, ties to the issue of late-stage revival. Queen arguably became one of the biggest bands of the 2010s thanks to the musical We Will Rock You and the movie Bohemian Rhapsody, which even made them a sensation in the U.S. ABBA, similarly, gained renewed attention through the Mamma Mia! movies, musical, and the immersive show in London, helping them connect with younger audiences. Elton John managed to collaborate with contemporary artists and climbed back onto the charts.

The Rolling Stones, by contrast, haven’t fully capitalized on this modern revival wave. To become a streaming phenomenon, they need to find a fresh angle—simply continuing their legacy without external support or innovation might not suffice. Collaboration, multimedia storytelling, or leveraging modern pop culture platforms could help reignite their global appeal.

Additionally, I sometimes feel that large parts of their catalog are being underutilized. It’s a treasure trove of timeless music that deserves broader exposure and creative use across media to keep it alive for new generations. The potential is immense, but it requires deliberate effort to tap into it.

Great points, Tiffany, and I agree across the board.

The Stones are great at earning (and affording) coverage in legacy media. But as with American politics, young people don’t consume that media anymore. The way the Stones roll out tours and new products becomes a forum for the same aging Stones fans to talk to ourselves.

To borrow a very dark point from education, people who teach the Holocaust point out that young people’s awareness of it is declining over time. It needs to be taught to every generation, again and again.

Here’s a lighter note: The superhero movie franchises understand that you can tell and retell origin stories over and over again, with new actors and newfangled special effects. The story of Superman and Spider-Man is essentially fresh fodder for each generation.

The Stones need to figure out a new way to retell their origin story.

Quote
tiffanyblu
I’ve been discussing this extensively in other threads, so it’s refreshing to see this finally being acknowledged here.

I’d like to contribute a few observations: I’m 36, and among my closest friends—who, not surprisingly, are also Stones fans because I got them into it—most still recognize more Queen songs than Rolling Stones tracks. Among my wider circle of acquaintances, they’ve likely heard of The Rolling Stones but usually know only "Paint It Black." Tracks like "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or "Honky Tonk Women" don’t seem to resonate—they simply don’t recognize them. At the same time - they can do sing a long to at least 10 Queen songs!

This, I believe, ties to the issue of late-stage revival. Queen arguably became one of the biggest bands of the 2010s thanks to the musical We Will Rock You and the movie Bohemian Rhapsody, which even made them a sensation in the U.S. ABBA, similarly, gained renewed attention through the Mamma Mia! movies, musical, and the immersive show in London, helping them connect with younger audiences. Elton John managed to collaborate with contemporary artists and climbed back onto the charts.

The Rolling Stones, by contrast, haven’t fully capitalized on this modern revival wave. To become a streaming phenomenon, they need to find a fresh angle—simply continuing their legacy without external support or innovation might not suffice. Collaboration, multimedia storytelling, or leveraging modern pop culture platforms could help reignite their global appeal.

Additionally, I sometimes feel that large parts of their catalog are being underutilized. It’s a treasure trove of timeless music that deserves broader exposure and creative use across media to keep it alive for new generations. The potential is immense, but it requires deliberate effort to tap into it.

Although way earlier (1992) Wayne's World might've had a bit of influence on the revival interest of Queen. I remember as a child hearing We Will Rock You and Champions on the radio but nothing else.

To this day on Vlassic Rawk radio Queen is played more than the Stones. And it's always the same songs - Satisfaction, PIB, LSTNT, SFTD, JJF, SFM, HTW, Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, Angie, Miss You, BOB and Start me Up.

Maybe once in a while ER will get played or Wild Horses and Ruby Tuesday, Get Off My Cloud and 19th but in general, those 14 I mentioned are it.

I can't think of 14 Queen songs but I know there's about 5 that get played every day. If I hear Bicycle again I might have to drive into a river, although lately I've stopped listening to classic rock radio.

Perhaps Stones songs lack sophistication, at least in terms of recognition compared to Queen etc. Queen was extremely inventive. Elton John was inventive.

Doesn't say anything about Journey - they knew one thing and did it bizarrely well - power ballads.

Elton John did something with Britney... kinda. He's always, somehow, been in the social mosh pit of hipness.

The Rolling Stones are definitely an acquired taste. You don't just stumble upon a sneering leering singer and river raft floating guitarist and go OH WOWWWW!!!! compared to Freddie Mercury.

It's evident The Rolling Stones don't care about being current in regard to every day social norms (they used to be opposite of them in the 1970s), only in being late to the music trend and then releasing something that says, See? We can do it too... and it's nothing near as good as what already happened six months or a year ago - with one exception - Miss You.

Is the record label concerned? Reading that article from summer of 2023 it seemed like it. After the album came out, their little 18 month plan was already finished. Maybe they realized, Oh, legacy act, no one really specifically cares.

One day some movie will come out and it won't be Gimme Shelter or Can't You Hear Me Knocking for the 20th time but something odd like Time Waits For No One or Dancing With Mr D or Feel On Baby or 100 Years Ago or Turd On The Run or Tie You Up or No Use In Crying. Something really out there.

There's no need for a play or movie because the geezers have never gone away. They keep touring and people keep going. They've become their own phenomenon. While they hardly or didn't release new music!!! Because their greatest hits fan base is enough.

The time of interest in the fan base has passed. While The Beatles had the three anthologies loaded with all kinds of really interesting stuff (that sold really well), the Stones plowed through with VODOO and STRIPPED. The Beatles have released remixed albums with a buffet of extras, the Stones reissue something with table scraps for extras.

Meanwhile theatrical things in various formats/types happen with Queen and ABBA.

Apparently Queen and ABBA are truly interesting.

I think the big difference with all those other bands, they've been done and are relying on legacy. Whoever is managing those businesses has to rely on different revenue streams (Elton being the exception, as he's managed to glom on to younger acts to stay out there while hitting the older fans with a farewell tour).

While not necessarily "relevant", the Rolling Stones are still an active entity who pretty much refused the nostalgia route (concert setlists not withstanding). Compare that to the Beatles, who've been repackaging the same finite songs for 54 years.

Once the touring stops, I think you'll see the legacy start to be managed. Or they need something to go viral on Tik Tok (search for "Silver Springs" and watch how every woman 18-26 relates to Steveie Nicks singing to Lindsay Buckingham).

Quote
TooTight
I think the big difference with all those other bands, they've been done and are relying on legacy. Whoever is managing those businesses has to rely on different revenue streams (Elton being the exception, as he's managed to glom on to younger acts to stay out there while hitting the older fans with a farewell tour).

While not necessarily "relevant", the Rolling Stones are still an active entity who pretty much refused the nostalgia route (concert setlists not withstanding). Compare that to the Beatles, who've been repackaging the same finite songs for 54 years.

Once the touring stops, I think you'll see the legacy start to be managed. Or they need something to go viral on Tik Tok (search for "Silver Springs" and watch how every woman 18-26 relates to Steveie Nicks singing to Lindsay Buckingham).

What? You said "the big difference with all those other bands, they've been done and are relying on legacy".

Then said they need to rely on revenue streams.

First off, no they don't. Nor can they.

Second off, if any of those legacy bands/artists are relying on revenue streams they're being ripped off except for radio, whether it's FM, AM or satellite.

Otherwise they're making next to nothing with streaming.

To compare the 2020s Rolling Stones to The Beatles is beyond laughable. The Stones don't need to care with new (HACKNEY DIAMONDS) or old (whatever what record label promotes) - they are the definition of nostalgia.

A new Beatles release blows the Stones away, chart wise.

Nothing the Stones do new will ever fall in with 1964-1981. That's been proven since 1983. Some years aside, with one or two post-1981 songs, it's all about through deep past, darkly.

Tiktok or whatever else comes along won't matter. Solo artists are one thing. And there's no guarantee that what a solo artist does on one platform equates to others yet alone a career. If Stevie Nicks started out now she'd be just as like the rest - a big deal but not actually a big deal.

The Rolling Stones are essentially done - they'll never be bigger than Elvis or The Beatles, and streaming will certainly reveal that, because all three, at some point, will be next to nothing, and the Stones will be the first to fall way off.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
TooTight
I think the big difference with all those other bands, they've been done and are relying on legacy. Whoever is managing those businesses has to rely on different revenue streams (Elton being the exception, as he's managed to glom on to younger acts to stay out there while hitting the older fans with a farewell tour).

While not necessarily "relevant", the Rolling Stones are still an active entity who pretty much refused the nostalgia route (concert setlists not withstanding). Compare that to the Beatles, who've been repackaging the same finite songs for 54 years.

Once the touring stops, I think you'll see the legacy start to be managed. Or they need something to go viral on Tik Tok (search for "Silver Springs" and watch how every woman 18-26 relates to Steveie Nicks singing to Lindsay Buckingham).

What? You said "the big difference with all those other bands, they've been done and are relying on legacy".

Then said they need to rely on revenue streams.

First off, no they don't. Nor can they.

Second off, if any of those legacy bands/artists are relying on revenue streams they're being ripped off except for radio, whether it's FM, AM or satellite.

Otherwise they're making next to nothing with streaming.

To compare the 2020s Rolling Stones to The Beatles is beyond laughable. The Stones don't need to care with new (HACKNEY DIAMONDS) or old (whatever what record label promotes) - they are the definition of nostalgia.

A new Beatles release blows the Stones away, chart wise.

Nothing the Stones do new will ever fall in with 1964-1981. That's been proven since 1983. Some years aside, with one or two post-1981 songs, it's all about through deep past, darkly.

Tiktok or whatever else comes along won't matter. Solo artists are one thing. And there's no guarantee that what a solo artist does on one platform equates to others yet alone a career. If Stevie Nicks started out now she'd be just as like the rest - a big deal but not actually a big deal.

The Rolling Stones are essentially done - they'll never be bigger than Elvis or The Beatles, and streaming will certainly reveal that, because all three, at some point, will be next to nothing, and the Stones will be the first to fall way off.

It's a bit fun though, Elvis largest streaming period is coming up now (xmas) and Stones, having no xmas songs always do worse during Christmas. Elvis is though far behind Stones in number of total streams. and his star among younger people seem to have fallen quite quickly. Frank Sinatra almost have the same number of streams as Elvis.

My hotspot is not cooperating. It won't do much looking up - why is it just Spotify for top 200? There's got to be a site that includes Apple etc.

Quote
tiffanyblu
I’ve been discussing this extensively in other threads, so it’s refreshing to see this finally being acknowledged here.

I’d like to contribute a few observations: I’m 36, and among my closest friends—who, not surprisingly, are also Stones fans because I got them into it—most still recognize more Queen songs than Rolling Stones tracks. Among my wider circle of acquaintances, they’ve likely heard of The Rolling Stones but usually know only "Paint It Black." Tracks like "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or "Honky Tonk Women" don’t seem to resonate—they simply don’t recognize them. At the same time - they can do sing a long to at least 10 Queen songs!

This, I believe, ties to the issue of late-stage revival. Queen arguably became one of the biggest bands of the 2010s thanks to the musical We Will Rock You and the movie Bohemian Rhapsody, which even made them a sensation in the U.S. ABBA, similarly, gained renewed attention through the Mamma Mia! movies, musical, and the immersive show in London, helping them connect with younger audiences. Elton John managed to collaborate with contemporary artists and climbed back onto the charts.

The Rolling Stones, by contrast, haven’t fully capitalized on this modern revival wave. To become a streaming phenomenon, they need to find a fresh angle—simply continuing their legacy without external support or innovation might not suffice. Collaboration, multimedia storytelling, or leveraging modern pop culture platforms could help reignite their global appeal.

Additionally, I sometimes feel that large parts of their catalog are being underutilized. It’s a treasure trove of timeless music that deserves broader exposure and creative use across media to keep it alive for new generations. The potential is immense, but it requires deliberate effort to tap into it.

Excellent post; and all so true. You've precisely nailed why the likes of Elton and Queen are far, far, more popular amongst Generation Z than the Stones are. The Stones machine needs to do a lot more to engage the younger demographic. They simply must exploit Tik-Tok; Instagram and Spotify. They won't be able to continually sell repackaged vinyl releases to the ageing boomers and Generation X brigade forevermore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-13 12:49 by Big Al.

Elton and Queen have both had successful biographical shows and movies that have reframed their music for new audiences. I seem to remember Tim Rice sketched out a show called something like “sympathy for the devil” (supported by financial advisor Rupert) which was squashed by Mick. I wonder if it is still around ?

Spotify listenership just ticked downward a little more, now below 26 million.

The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

They should fire everyone.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

They should fire everyone.

Here, here! If we hope the Stones keep these releases coming, they have to shift units; be that via streaming or physical sales. My fear is that Mick may loose the insentive.

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

They should fire everyone.

UMG could promote it. But if they did they'd probably wonder how they'd promote the next official live album that they're not going to release.

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Not any big surprise. Just another gig from all of these tours since 1989 has a big challenge to excite even hardcore fans. For example, I passed this one.

Hopefully someone is making notes, and they will use a bit more creative imagination for these vault releases in future. Be it a "club" and hearing, say, "Moon Is Up" is not good enough.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-19 11:02 by Doxa.

Spotify listenership fell by another 100,000.

Quote
MelBelli
Spotify listenership fell by another 100,000.

What?? Is this a conspiracy? Why such a drop-off in listenership? I’ve been listening to them a lot on this platform, recently. At least I can say I’m doing my bit!

Bet they'd do a lot better on the T shirt charts...

..that's what really matters

Quote
MelBelli
Spotify listenership fell by another 100,000.

Although it would be cool to dig a niche artist like cool people do, it still sad to think If one of those big names that would be forgotten in future will by my favourite band. You know, the 'greatest' of all rock bands. But for some bloody reason The Stones just don't seem to resonate with people any longer (unlike some other big acts from the past). It is not just the case of Spotify I can see.

It probably is just us old fans here, and still some (quite many) curious tourists still alive that keep this band still big. But when we - pretty soon - are gone...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-25 00:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
MelBelli
Spotify listenership fell by another 100,000.

What?? Is this a conspiracy? Why such a drop-off in listenership? I’ve been listening to them a lot on this platform, recently. At least I can say I’m doing my bit!

Why would you consider people quitting Spotify as a conspiracy?

Doing your part? As a subscriber? You're not helping any artist/band by subscribing. It's a scam.

Movies help!

Bob Dylan’s Spotify numbers jumped from 14.7 to 15.7 million since “A Complete Unknown” came out.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al

Quote
MelBelli
Spotify listenership fell by another 100,000.

What?? Is this a conspiracy? Why such a drop-off in listenership? I’ve been listening to them a lot on this platform, recently. At least I can say I’m doing my bit!

Why would you consider people quitting Spotify as a conspiracy?

Doing your part? As a subscriber? You're not helping any artist/band by subscribing. It's a scam.

I was joking about there been a ‘conspiracy’

In regard to ‘helping’ and ‘doing my part’ Well, I am contributing to their Spotify listenership. As for ‘helping’ any artist. Um, most of the acts I listen to certainly do not need my money. I’ve invested plenty of £ in the Stones.

Rumors about the European tour started to generate some buzz in the UK at least:

- 40 Licks is back on the UK Top 100 chart after 2+ months, it ranks at #99 this week with close to 2,000 units.

- Hackney Diamonds is back on the Physical sales chart at #94, first time charting there since June, only a couple of hundred copies sold but better than nothing.

[www.officialcharts.com]
[www.officialcharts.com]

In the top twenty of Amazon UK since some weeks , that’s a sign....!

Good news!

Queen at Live Aid, took them into the stratosphere, from which they have never really come down

Similar with U2 at Live Aid, catipulted them to a wider larger audience, from which they have never come down

Not saying Live Aid is the only reason, but it is certainly a key large contributory factor

Quote
jigsaw69
Queen at Live Aid, took them into the stratosphere, from which they have never really come down

Similar with U2 at Live Aid, catipulted them to a wider larger audience, from which they have never come down

Not saying Live Aid is the only reason, but it is certainly a key large contributory factor

those were different days! It is being said that the Live Aid shows reached between 1.5 and 2 billion people (note that the world population was just under 5 billion in 1985)

Some good posts in this thread. I am in my late 20s so definitely one of the youngest probably in here haha. My friends know who The Rolling Stones are, they know the logo, but the catalogue just doesn’t seem to connect. They will play Paint It Black, Beast of Burden, Sympathy, and maybe Gimme Shelter and I’m just stunned they don’t know warhorses like JJF, Brown Sugar, HTW…

One that I have gotten I few hooked on is Out Of Time. That song gained a lot of traction with the movie Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. She’s a Rainbow goes over well too.

In my opinion the Stones need a movie like Bob Dylan or Queen. There’s so much potential here. I think that will eventually happen but right now they’re still touring at a high level and able to put out new music so I don’t think it’s a focus at all. Disney has put out a lot of Beatles material. I do think the Stones will be a future endeavor for something similar

Quote
slewan

Quote
jigsaw69
Queen at Live Aid, took them into the stratosphere, from which they have never really come down

Similar with U2 at Live Aid, catipulted them to a wider larger audience, from which they have never come down

Not saying Live Aid is the only reason, but it is certainly a key large contributory factor

those were different days! It is being said that the Live Aid shows reached between 1.5 and 2 billion people (note that the world population was just under 5 billion in 1985)

Very different days, analogue days.....but the power of Live Aid and its reach has cascaded down the generations and the media, and taken the 2 most successful bands of the day, Queen and U2, with it.

Who knows what the outcome may have been, if The Stones had rocked up in '85 and blew everyone away with an amazing tight set of say JJF, BS, Satisfaction & SMU, which now has hundreds of millions of views on youtube, and they built a feature film around sometime in the future.....

Quote
TW2019
Some good posts in this thread. I am in my late 20s so definitely one of the youngest probably in here haha. My friends know who The Rolling Stones are, they know the logo, but the catalogue just doesn’t seem to connect. They will play Paint It Black, Beast of Burden, Sympathy, and maybe Gimme Shelter and I’m just stunned they don’t know warhorses like JJF, Brown Sugar, HTW…

One that I have gotten I few hooked on is Out Of Time. That song gained a lot of traction with the movie Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. She’s a Rainbow goes over well too.

In my opinion the Stones need a movie like Bob Dylan or Queen. There’s so much potential here. I think that will eventually happen but right now they’re still touring at a high level and able to put out new music so I don’t think it’s a focus at all. Disney has put out a lot of Beatles material. I do think the Stones will be a future endeavor for something similar

A song like "She's A Rainbow" has been successful in advertising and I know the younger demographic like that.

I think in general more "pop" sounding music tends to connect better, well at least easier initially for most people (it's also what you tire of the most quickly!).

The Stones are generally not very "pop" sounding so they'll never have as big recognition as Beatles/Queen/ABBA, but saying that, they've probably been the most successful "non-pop" band ever, a few pop tunes thrown in over time, notwithstanding.